Star Brewery v. Croake

Appellate Court of Illinois

Star Brewery v. Croake

57 Ill. App. 287, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 277

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 10, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 Ill. App. 287 (Star Brewery v. Croake) 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

Star Brewery v. Croake, 57 Ill. App. 287, 1894 Ill. App. LEXIS 277 (Ill. Ct. App. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gary

delivered the opinion oe the Court.

The appellant was guarantor of the performance of all covenants by lessees of the appellee, among which covenants were one to pay rent and another to pay all attorney fees incurred by the appellee in enforcing the covenants of the lease. The rent was $55 per month.

The lease contained a provision that if the lessees abandoned the premises the appellee might relet them, and if, at. a loss, the lessees would pay the deficiency.

She sued for $50 deficiency on two months, and $110 attorney fees incurred in enforcing the covenants in former suits.

On the trial she testified that under written leases she had received $60 for the two months, and the appellant objected and excepted to such testimony without the production of the leases; but the covenant was “ if a sufficient sum shall not be thus realized * * * to satisfy and pay all deficiency.”

The question therefore was, not what others had agreed to pajr, but how much she had realized, which the leases, if produced, had no tendency to show.

After the evidence on the part of the appelleee was all in, the appellant moved the court that the finding be for $60, which motion the court overruled, and later entered a finding for $160, to which the appellant excepted.

The appellant is not in a position, after such a motion, to complain generally of a finding for the appellee.

The case is, in substance, like that of giving instructions upon a principle concurred in by both parties, when neither can complain. Keeler v. Kerr, 54 Ill. App. 468.

Neither a'general exception to the finding, nor a motion for a new trial assigning as a reason that the finding is against the evidence, raises any question of excessive amount. Giffert v. McGuern, 51 Ill. App. 387.

We shall not, therefore, take the pains to' show that the amount is in fact right. The judgment is affirmed.

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