O. C. Wilson Advertising Co. v. Orr

197 Ill. App. 607, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 605
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided January 31, 1916·No. Gen. No. 21,425·Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal brings in review a judgment for nine hundred and ninety dollars entered on the verdict of a jury in an action brought by the appellee against the appellants in the Municipal Court.

From the evidence we think that the jury might properly find that the defendants made to the plaintiff a joint original promise to pay for certain advertising which the plaintiff was to insert in certain newspapers, and that the plaintiff caused the advertisements agreed on to be inserted in newspapers in accordance with the terms of defendants’ promise.

The contention of appellants that the court erred in admitting evidence that the advertisements were inserted in newspapers without producing the papers is without merit. The act of publishing a document regarded as distinct from the terms of the document may be proved without production. 2 Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1248; City of Des Moines v. Casady, 21 Iowa 572; Moore v. Gilliam, 5 Mun. (Va.) 348; Dingle v. City of Chicago, 172 Ill. 170; McChesney v. People, 178 Ill. 542.

The evidence is, in our opinion, ample to sustain the verdict, we find in the record no reversible error in procedure, and the judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

O. C. Wilson Advertising Co. v. Orr, 197 Ill. App. 607, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 605 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

197 Ill. App. 607 (O. C. Wilson Advertising Co. v. Orr) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lingle v. City of Chicago
50 N.E. 192 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1898)
McChesney v. People ex rel. Kochersperger
53 N.E. 356 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1899)
City of Des Moines v. Casady
21 Iowa 570 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1866)