Mueller v. Holm

Appellate Court of Illinois

Mueller v. Holm

101 Ill. App. 438, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 636

DecidedApril 4, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 101 Ill. App. 438 (Mueller v. Holm) 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. Holm, 101 Ill. App. 438, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 636 (Ill. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justioe Waterman

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is urged in this case that the finding of the jury and judgment of the Circuit Court are so manifestly against the evidence that this court ought to set the same aside. We have examined the abstract and the argument of counsel and are of the opinion that the verdict was in accordance with the weight of the evidence.

Nor do we find any error as to the admission or rejection of evidence such as would warrant a reversal of the judgment.

The court might with propriety have allowed appellant to answer the question as to whether appellee had testified that there had been no settlement made with the company as to the amount he had paid the company “ on this assumed indebtedness; ” nevertheless, we are not prepared to say that the court’s refusal so to do was error.

Whether appellee had settled with the company was immaterial.

Appellee’s testimony that he had settled was not only received without objection, but appellant did not move to strike it out; it was, moreover, not only immaterial but inconsequential.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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