Mayer Bros. v. Parenti

Appellate Court of Illinois

Mayer Bros. v. Parenti

176 Ill. App. 300, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 1449

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 14, 1913

DocketGen. No. 17,858

StatusPublished

This text of 176 Ill. App. 300 (Mayer Bros. v. Parenti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mayer Bros. v. Parenti, 176 Ill. App. 300, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 1449 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the appellee and against the appellant for $1,033.93 (erroneously stated in the abstract to be $10,033.93). No bill of exceptions is included in the record. The only error complained of is that in the closing part of the judgment order the language used is, “together with Ms costs and charges in this behalf expended,” etc., instead of “together with its costs and charges in this behalf expended,” etc.

We do not regard this slight grammatical error as sufficient to warrant a reversal of the judgment. The judgment will therefore be affirmed, and the court, being of the opinion that the appeal herein was prosecuted for delay, assesses damages in favor of the said appellee and against the said appellant in the sum of one hundred dollars for such delay, for which sum the said appellee shall have judgment in addition to the costs.

Affirmed with additional costs*

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the appellee and against the appellant for $1,033.93 (erroneously stated in the abstract to be $10,033.93). No bill of exceptions is included in the record. The only error complained of is that in the closing part of the judgment order the language used is, “together with Ms costs and charges in this behalf expended,” etc., instead of “together with its costs and charges in this behalf expended,” etc.

We do not regard this slight grammatical error as sufficient to warrant a reversal of the judgment. The judgment will therefore be affirmed, and the court, being of the opinion that the appeal herein was prosecuted for delay, assesses damages in favor of the said appellee and against the said appellant in the sum of one hundred dollars for such delay, for which sum the said appellee shall have judgment in addition to the costs.

Affirmed with additional costs*

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 Ill. App. 300, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 1449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayer-bros-v-parenti-illappct-1913.