Mueller v. Grant

Appellate Court of Illinois

Mueller v. Grant

26 Ill. App. 585, 1887 Ill. App. LEXIS 308

DecidedMay 31, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Ill. App. 585 (Mueller v. Grant) 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

Mueller v. Grant, 26 Ill. App. 585, 1887 Ill. App. LEXIS 308 (Ill. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

McAllister, J.

This was an action of trover brought by appellee against appellant. Plea, the general issue. Verdict and judgment against defendant for §300 damages and costs. On the trial, the principal issue was whether a certain chattel mortgage covering the goods in question and under which the plaintiff claimed the goods as belonging to him, was fraudulent and voi 1, as to the creditors of the mortgagors. Upon that question there was a conflict of evidence. There was no ruling of the court as to the admission or exclusion of evidence, to which exception was taken and relied upon as error. The errors relied upon and for which a reversal is asked on behalf of appellant are that the verdict is against the weight and preponderance of the evidence, and that the trial Judge refu'sed proper instructions asked on behalf of the defendant. The answer to both these assignments of error is, that the bill of exceptions wholly fails to show that any motion for a new trial was made, neither does it show that any instructions were given or refused, or incorporate any. The .judgment must therefore be affirmed. Affirmed.

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

McAllister, J.

This was an action of trover brought by appellee against appellant. Plea, the general issue. Verdict and judgment against defendant for §300 damages and costs. On the trial, the principal issue was whether a certain chattel mortgage covering the goods in question and under which the plaintiff claimed the goods as belonging to him, was fraudulent and voi 1, as to the creditors of the mortgagors. Upon that question there was a conflict of evidence. There was no ruling of the court as to the admission or exclusion of evidence, to which exception was taken and relied upon as error. The errors relied upon and for which a reversal is asked on behalf of appellant are that the verdict is against the weight and preponderance of the evidence, and that the trial Judge refu'sed proper instructions asked on behalf of the defendant. The answer to both these assignments of error is, that the bill of exceptions wholly fails to show that any motion for a new trial was made, neither does it show that any instructions were given or refused, or incorporate any. The .judgment must therefore be affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Ill. App. 585, 1887 Ill. App. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mueller-v-grant-illappct-1888.