Rogers Grain Co. v. Shepherd

Appellate Court of Illinois

Rogers Grain Co. v. Shepherd

116 Ill. App. 532, 1904 Ill. App. LEXIS 126

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 14, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 Ill. App. 532 (Rogers Grain Co. v. Shepherd) 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

Rogers Grain Co. v. Shepherd, 116 Ill. App. 532, 1904 Ill. App. LEXIS 126 (Ill. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Puterbaugh

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit brought by appellee against appellant to recover the value of certain corn which he claims to have delivered to appellant. The case was tried by the court without a jury and judgment rendered against appellant for $73. It is stipulated that seventy-three loads of corn were delivered by appellee to appellant and that the same was paid for at the rate of thirty-five cents per bushel. Appellee claimed, however, that he delivered seventy-seven instead of seventy-three loads, and sues to recover the value of the four additional loads. The only grounds urged for reversal are that the court admitted and considered certain incompetent testimony and that the finding and judgment wrere contrary to the evidence.

The testimony referred to was clearly hearsay and therefore inadmissible, but no objection thereto was interposed at the time of its introduction. We have carefully read and considered the evidence as it appears in the record and are of opinion that there is sufficient competent a,nd proper evidence to warrant and sustain the finding and judgment of the trial court. We will therefore presume that the trial judge did not consider any immaterial or improper evidence in reaching a decision. Transportation Co. v. Joesting, 89 Ill. 152.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Puterbaugh

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit brought by appellee against appellant to recover the value of certain corn which he claims to have delivered to appellant. The case was tried by the court without a jury and judgment rendered against appellant for $73. It is stipulated that seventy-three loads of corn were delivered by appellee to appellant and that the same was paid for at the rate of thirty-five cents per bushel. Appellee claimed, however, that he delivered seventy-seven instead of seventy-three loads, and sues to recover the value of the four additional loads. The only grounds urged for reversal are that the court admitted and considered certain incompetent testimony and that the finding and judgment wrere contrary to the evidence.

The testimony referred to was clearly hearsay and therefore inadmissible, but no objection thereto was interposed at the time of its introduction. We have carefully read and considered the evidence as it appears in the record and are of opinion that there is sufficient competent a,nd proper evidence to warrant and sustain the finding and judgment of the trial court. We will therefore presume that the trial judge did not consider any immaterial or improper evidence in reaching a decision. Transportation Co. v. Joesting, 89 Ill. 152.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 Ill. App. 532, 1904 Ill. App. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-grain-co-v-shepherd-illappct-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack