Seabury v. Ross

Illinois Supreme Court

Seabury v. Ross

69 Ill. 533

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1873

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 Ill. 533 (Seabury v. Ross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seabury v. Ross, 69 Ill. 533 (Ill. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Soholfield

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This judgment must be reversed, for the reason that there is no evidence in the record authorizing the damages assessed by the jury. The effect of the mere finding against appellant is, to authorize nominal damages only. If damages were sustained beyond that amount, it was incumbent on the appellees to prove them. The jury, in the absence of evidence, had no right to assume that appellees had sustained other than nominal damages.

We perceive no other error in the record.

Judgment reversed.

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

Mr. Justice Soholfield

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This judgment must be reversed, for the reason that there is no evidence in the record authorizing the damages assessed by the jury. The effect of the mere finding against appellant is, to authorize nominal damages only. If damages were sustained beyond that amount, it was incumbent on the appellees to prove them. The jury, in the absence of evidence, had no right to assume that appellees had sustained other than nominal damages.

We perceive no other error in the record.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 Ill. 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seabury-v-ross-ill-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack