McIntosh v. Barnes

Appellate Court of Illinois

McIntosh v. Barnes

54 Ill. App. 274, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 94

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 19, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 Ill. App. 274 (McIntosh v. Barnes) 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

McIntosh v. Barnes, 54 Ill. App. 274, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 94 (Ill. Ct. App. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit was brought by appellees, who are real estate brokers, against appellant, to recover commissions claimed to have been earned by them in the sale of certain premises in the city of Chicago. There was a finding and judgment for the plaintiff.

In the record here presented, no exception to anything done by the court below appears, save an exception, taken to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, but neither such motion nor exception is shown by the bill of exceptions. It is not the business of the clerk to keep note of exceptions taken, and his minute of the same does not make them a part of the record. Foreman v. Johnson, 37 Ill. App. 452; Underhill v. M. & C. R. R. Co., 40 Ill. App. 22; Harris v. The People, 130 Ill. 464; Burnett v. Snapp, 39 Ill. App. 237.

We therefore can not consider the motion for anew trial or the reasons urged in support thereof.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit was brought by appellees, who are real estate brokers, against appellant, to recover commissions claimed to have been earned by them in the sale of certain premises in the city of Chicago. There was a finding and judgment for the plaintiff.

In the record here presented, no exception to anything done by the court below appears, save an exception, taken to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, but neither such motion nor exception is shown by the bill of exceptions. It is not the business of the clerk to keep note of exceptions taken, and his minute of the same does not make them a part of the record. Foreman v. Johnson, 37 Ill. App. 452; Underhill v. M. & C. R. R. Co., 40 Ill. App. 22; Harris v. The People, 130 Ill. 464; Burnett v. Snapp, 39 Ill. App. 237.

We therefore can not consider the motion for anew trial or the reasons urged in support thereof.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Ill. App. 274, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcintosh-v-barnes-illappct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack