Rousseau v. Poitras

Appellate Court of Illinois

Rousseau v. Poitras

62 Ill. App. 103, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 389

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 22, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 Ill. App. 103 (Rousseau v. Poitras) 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

Rousseau v. Poitras, 62 Ill. App. 103, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 389 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

To constitute a certificate, given by the superintendent of work, the final one, it is not essential that it be therein declared to be such. The certificate, dated October 22, 1892, appears to be final, because it is apparently in balance or satisfaction of all claims. The parties might have stipulated that no certificate should be considered final unless it was declared therein that it was so, but we find no such stipulation, nor was it necessary, so far as appears, that the superintendent should declare in such certificate that the work had been done to his satisfaction.

The superintendent testified that the certificate in question was given under an arrangement for a release of all claim by reason of delay in doing the work, and that appellant authorized the witness to give the certificate.

The verdict of the jury was warranted by the evidence. Hatters of evidence, upon which counsel rely, should be abstracted; it is not sufficient to refer to a contract as to be found in the record, if one desires to base an argument upon the terms of such instrument.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

To constitute a certificate, given by the superintendent of work, the final one, it is not essential that it be therein declared to be such. The certificate, dated October 22, 1892, appears to be final, because it is apparently in balance or satisfaction of all claims. The parties might have stipulated that no certificate should be considered final unless it was declared therein that it was so, but we find no such stipulation, nor was it necessary, so far as appears, that the superintendent should declare in such certificate that the work had been done to his satisfaction.

The superintendent testified that the certificate in question was given under an arrangement for a release of all claim by reason of delay in doing the work, and that appellant authorized the witness to give the certificate.

The verdict of the jury was warranted by the evidence. Hatters of evidence, upon which counsel rely, should be abstracted; it is not sufficient to refer to a contract as to be found in the record, if one desires to base an argument upon the terms of such instrument.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 Ill. App. 103, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rousseau-v-poitras-illappct-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack