Metcalf v. Edmiston

25 Ill. 392
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1861·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Caton, C. J.

The answer to the bill of discovery was not offered in evidence, and is not in the bill of exceptions, and is not properly a part of this record.

No exception was taken to the decision of the court, admitting the railroad books in evidence, to show what hogs were shipped by rail, and consequently that decision cannot bo assigned for error. There was no error in admitting the deposition of Me Whinny in evidence. In our opinion, the evidence in the bill of exceptions fails to show that this note was given by Edmiston, for hogs purchased on joint account for himself and Kramer, or that Kramer was interested in the hogs purchased of the plaintiff, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed '.

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

Metcalf v. Edmiston, 25 Ill. 392 (Ill. 1861).

25 Ill. 392 (Metcalf v. Edmiston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gray v. Meek
101 Ill. App. 463 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1902)