Meixsell v. Rich

Appellate Court of Illinois

Meixsell v. Rich

66 Ill. App. 460, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 897

DecidedSeptember 5, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 66 Ill. App. 460 (Meixsell v. Rich) 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

Meixsell v. Rich, 66 Ill. App. 460, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 897 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Sample

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The record in this case does not purport to contain all the evidence, therefore we are precluded from considering the issue of fact. James v. Dexter, 113 Ill. 656. There are no instructions printed in either the abstract or briefs. As was said in the case of Johnson v. Bantock, 38 Ill. p. 114, “ We shall not, in future, feel ourselves bound to hear or decide causes on such abstracts, as from them we can derive no possible benefit.” Kelleker v. Tisdale, 23 Ill. 405; Shackleford v. Bailey, 35 Ill. 388. There are many decisions of the. Appellate Courts of like purport. Murray v. Gibson, 21 Ill. App. 488; Fisher v. Ham, 24 Ill. App. 601; Harris v. Rose, 26 Ill. App. 237; Richey v. Dunham, 50 Ill. App. 246. The other errors assigned, so far as we are permitted to consider the same, are not considered well taken. The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion per Curiam.

A rehearing has been prayed for in this case on the authority of Gerke v. Fancher, 57 Ill. App. 651.

In the Gerke-Fancher case, the bill of exceptions showed, by direct averment, that it contained all of the evidence, and this important statement was omitted from the transcript of the record by reason of the carelessness of the clerk, and without negligence on the part of the appellant’s attorneys.

In the case at bar the bill of exceptions did not' show that it contained all of the evidence, and the clerk did not make a mistake in copying it into the transcript. One of appellant’s attorneys assisted in comparing the transcript with the original papers. Another had the transcript in his possession for four days, but “ overlooked ánd failed to note the aforesaid omission.” To grant a reheaving in the face of these facts would amount to an encouragement of carelessness in the preparation of cases for this court.

Appellant’s counsel are not relieved from the effect of the insufficiency of the record, by the fact that appellee’s counsel did not furnish them with a copy of their brief in conformity with our rules.

The petition for a rehearing is denied.

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

Mr. Justice Sample

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The record in this case does not purport to contain all the evidence, therefore we are precluded from considering the issue of fact. James v. Dexter, 113 Ill. 656. There are no instructions printed in either the abstract or briefs. As was said in the case of Johnson v. Bantock, 38 Ill. p. 114, “ We shall not, in future, feel ourselves bound to hear or decide causes on such abstracts, as from them we can derive no possible benefit.” Kelleker v. Tisdale, 23 Ill. 405; Shackleford v. Bailey, 35 Ill. 388. There are many decisions of the. Appellate Courts of like purport. Murray v. Gibson, 21 Ill. App. 488; Fisher v. Ham, 24 Ill. App. 601; Harris v. Rose, 26 Ill. App. 237; Richey v. Dunham, 50 Ill. App. 246. The other errors assigned, so far as we are permitted to consider the same, are not considered well taken. The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion per Curiam.

A rehearing has been prayed for in this case on the authority of Gerke v. Fancher, 57 Ill. App. 651.

In the Gerke-Fancher case, the bill of exceptions showed, by direct averment, that it contained all of the evidence, and this important statement was omitted from the transcript of the record by reason of the carelessness of the clerk, and without negligence on the part of the appellant’s attorneys.

In the case at bar the bill of exceptions did not' show that it contained all of the evidence, and the clerk did not make a mistake in copying it into the transcript. One of appellant’s attorneys assisted in comparing the transcript with the original papers. Another had the transcript in his possession for four days, but “ overlooked ánd failed to note the aforesaid omission.” To grant a reheaving in the face of these facts would amount to an encouragement of carelessness in the preparation of cases for this court.

Appellant’s counsel are not relieved from the effect of the insufficiency of the record, by the fact that appellee’s counsel did not furnish them with a copy of their brief in conformity with our rules.

The petition for a rehearing is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 Ill. App. 460, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meixsell-v-rich-illappct-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack