Medley v. Mix

Appellate Court of Illinois

Medley v. Mix

34 Ill. App. 550, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 300

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedFebruary 4, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 Ill. App. 550 (Medley v. Mix) 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

Medley v. Mix, 34 Ill. App. 550, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 300 (Ill. Ct. App. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Green, J.

The abstract of the record in this case is so defective, we should affirm the judgment for that cause alone under rule 26 of this court. The evidence and instructions, covering fifty pages of record, are not attempted to be set out in the abstract, which is a mere index thereof, and furnishes no aid to the court in the examination of the case. Such an entire disregard of a salutary rule will not be tolerated, but the penalty for its violation will be enforced as it has been heretofore, in People v. Angerer, 23 Ill. App. 451; Hepp v. Jaenemann, 23 Ill. App. 453. But in addition to this we desire to say, the contract relied upon as a defense was found by the jury, and properly so, under the evidence, to be a forgery. Trover was a proper action to recover damages for the unlawful conversion of plaintiff’s property by defendants. The damages recovered by appellee were not excessive, and no error appears requiring a reversal of the judgment. It is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Green, J.

The abstract of the record in this case is so defective, we should affirm the judgment for that cause alone under rule 26 of this court. The evidence and instructions, covering fifty pages of record, are not attempted to be set out in the abstract, which is a mere index thereof, and furnishes no aid to the court in the examination of the case. Such an entire disregard of a salutary rule will not be tolerated, but the penalty for its violation will be enforced as it has been heretofore, in People v. Angerer, 23 Ill. App. 451; Hepp v. Jaenemann, 23 Ill. App. 453. But in addition to this we desire to say, the contract relied upon as a defense was found by the jury, and properly so, under the evidence, to be a forgery. Trover was a proper action to recover damages for the unlawful conversion of plaintiff’s property by defendants. The damages recovered by appellee were not excessive, and no error appears requiring a reversal of the judgment. It is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Ill. App. 550, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medley-v-mix-illappct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack