Siegel v. Dickinson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Siegel v. Dickinson

163 Ill. App. 26, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 379

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 3, 1911

DocketGen. No. 15,686

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 163 Ill. App. 26 (Siegel v. Dickinson) 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

Siegel v. Dickinson, 163 Ill. App. 26, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 379 (Ill. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

Suit was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error upon a note, the note itself having been lost. The defenses were non est factum and no consideration.

The case was tried before the court without a jury, and there was a finding and judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The argument of counsel is addressed wholly to questions of fact. We have carefully examined the abstract of record and briefs and arguments for the parties,' and are unable to say that the conclusion reached by the trial judge is erroneous. The evidence consisted largely of letters from the plaintiff in error, which go far, in our opinion, to substantiate the claim of the defendant in error.

Affirmed.

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