McKillip v. Bonynge

Appellate Court of Illinois

McKillip v. Bonynge

86 Ill. App. 618, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 301

DecidedJanuary 18, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 86 Ill. App. 618 (McKillip v. Bonynge) 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

McKillip v. Bonynge, 86 Ill. App. 618, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 301 (Ill. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Sears

delivered the opinion of the court.

But two questions are presented upon this appeal: First, whether the demurrer to appellee’s declaration was properly overruled; and secondly, whether there was error in the assessment of damages.

Upon the first question no other contention is made by appellant except that the statute prohibits the sort of surgical operation which was performed by appellant, and that the claim of appellee can not be maintained for a matter growing out of an unlawful undertaking. It is sufficient to say, in disposing of this contention, that the act alleged in-the declaration as the ground of action, is laid at the date of June 3, 1891, and that the statute relied upon was approved upon June 17, 1891, and in force for the first time upon July 1, 1891.

The second contention is based upon an alleged lack of notice to appellant or his counsel of the inquest of damages. "Without discussing the necessity of such notice, it is enough to say that the record does not disclose any such lack of notice. There is no bill of exceptions. From all that appears from the common law record we must presume that the proceedings were regular. Phillips v. Kerr, 26 Ill. 213; St. Louis & S. E. Ry. Co. v. Wheelis, 72 Ill. 538; Magill v. Brown, 98 Ill. 235; Mullen v. The People, 138 Ill. 606. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Sears

delivered the opinion of the court.

But two questions are presented upon this appeal: First, whether the demurrer to appellee’s declaration was properly overruled; and secondly, whether there was error in the assessment of damages.

Upon the first question no other contention is made by appellant except that the statute prohibits the sort of surgical operation which was performed by appellant, and that the claim of appellee can not be maintained for a matter growing out of an unlawful undertaking. It is sufficient to say, in disposing of this contention, that the act alleged in-the declaration as the ground of action, is laid at the date of June 3, 1891, and that the statute relied upon was approved upon June 17, 1891, and in force for the first time upon July 1, 1891.

The second contention is based upon an alleged lack of notice to appellant or his counsel of the inquest of damages. "Without discussing the necessity of such notice, it is enough to say that the record does not disclose any such lack of notice. There is no bill of exceptions. From all that appears from the common law record we must presume that the proceedings were regular. Phillips v. Kerr, 26 Ill. 213; St. Louis & S. E. Ry. Co. v. Wheelis, 72 Ill. 538; Magill v. Brown, 98 Ill. 235; Mullen v. The People, 138 Ill. 606. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 Ill. App. 618, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckillip-v-bonynge-illappct-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack