Ramming v. Roland

Appellate Court of Illinois

Ramming v. Roland

198 Ill. App. 91, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 349

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedFebruary 16, 1916

DocketGen. No. 21,030

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 Ill. App. 91 (Ramming v. Roland) 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

Ramming v. Roland, 198 Ill. App. 91, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 349 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Pam

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Appeal and error, § 1303*—when evidence not preserved presumed sufficient. On a writ of error to the Municipal Court of Chicago, where the evidence upon which the trial court based its judgment is not preserved by bill of exceptions, statement of facts or stenographic report, it will be presumed that evidence offered was sufficient to sustain the court’s findings on the issues and its judgment thereon. 5. Appeal and error, § 1301*—when correct application of law to facts presumed. On a writ of error it is presumed, in the absence of anything in the record appearing affirmatively to the contrary, that the court correctly applied the law to the facts offered in evidence.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Pam

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Appeal and error, § 1303*—when evidence not preserved presumed sufficient. On a writ of error to the Municipal Court of Chicago, where the evidence upon which the trial court based its judgment is not preserved by bill of exceptions, statement of facts or stenographic report, it will be presumed that evidence offered was sufficient to sustain the court’s findings on the issues and its judgment thereon. 5. Appeal and error, § 1301*—when correct application of law to facts presumed. On a writ of error it is presumed, in the absence of anything in the record appearing affirmatively to the contrary, that the court correctly applied the law to the facts offered in evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 Ill. App. 91, 1916 Ill. App. LEXIS 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramming-v-roland-illappct-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack