Robertson v. Emerich

Appellate Court of Illinois

Robertson v. Emerich

88 Ill. App. 522, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 586

DecidedMay 10, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 88 Ill. App. 522 (Robertson v. Emerich) 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

Robertson v. Emerich, 88 Ill. App. 522, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 586 (Ill. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Sears

delivered the opinion of the court.

The verdict is sustained by the evidence. The only conflict was upon the application of certain payments, and upon that issue we are of opinion that the evidence is ample to warrant the finding of the jury.

The only question raised as to error in the rulings of the court is the admissibility of evidence of a transaction not included in the bill of particulars. But this evidence was not admitted to show a ground of action. It was merely for the purpose of rebutting the proof of payment, by showing that the payment was in fact in connection with the other transaction and not upon the notes. This was in no manner going beyond the limitations imposed by the bill of particulars, and in it there was no error.

Mo other question is raised upon this record.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Sears

delivered the opinion of the court.

The verdict is sustained by the evidence. The only conflict was upon the application of certain payments, and upon that issue we are of opinion that the evidence is ample to warrant the finding of the jury.

The only question raised as to error in the rulings of the court is the admissibility of evidence of a transaction not included in the bill of particulars. But this evidence was not admitted to show a ground of action. It was merely for the purpose of rebutting the proof of payment, by showing that the payment was in fact in connection with the other transaction and not upon the notes. This was in no manner going beyond the limitations imposed by the bill of particulars, and in it there was no error.

Mo other question is raised upon this record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 Ill. App. 522, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-emerich-illappct-1900.