Skilbeck v. Andreasen

Appellate Court of Illinois

Skilbeck v. Andreasen

186 Ill. App. 368

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 15, 1914

DocketGen. No. 5,884

StatusPublished

This text of 186 Ill. App. 368 (Skilbeck v. Andreasen) 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

Skilbeck v. Andreasen, 186 Ill. App. 368 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and ebbob, § 472*—necessity of preserving objection to questions asked of witness by court. Though section 81 of the Practice Act, as amended in 1911, J & A. ¶ 8618, does away with the necessity for preserving an exception, it is still the law that counsel considering themselves injured by question asked of a witness by the court must object thereto and give the trial judge an opportunity to withdraw the objectionable question.

Whitney, J., took no part in this decision.

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

Mr. Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and ebbob, § 472*—necessity of preserving objection to questions asked of witness by court. Though section 81 of the Practice Act, as amended in 1911, J & A. ¶ 8618, does away with the necessity for preserving an exception, it is still the law that counsel considering themselves injured by question asked of a witness by the court must object thereto and give the trial judge an opportunity to withdraw the objectionable question.

Whitney, J., took no part in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 Ill. App. 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skilbeck-v-andreasen-illappct-1914.