Thompson v. Duff

Appellate Court of Illinois

Thompson v. Duff

17 Ill. App. 304

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedSeptember 24, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 Ill. App. 304 (Thompson v. Duff) 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

Thompson v. Duff, 17 Ill. App. 304 (Ill. Ct. App. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only questions presented by argument of counsel for our consideration are, that the verdict is against the evidence, and the- court erred in giving instructions for appellee and refusing proper instructions asked by appellant.

These questions can not be considered by us, mdess ]-resented by a bill of exceptions containing the evidence and instructions.

There is a paper in the record purporting to be a bill of exceptions, but is neither signed nor sealed by the judge who tried the cause, as the statute requires, in order to make it a part of the record. In such case, such a paper, though copied into the record by the clerk below, constitutes no part of the record and can not be considered by this court. James v. Sprague, 2 Scam. 5; Miller v. Jenkins, 44 Ill. 448; Reeves v. Reeves, 54 Ill. 332.

We can not therefore inquire whether the court erred as suggested in argument.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The only questions presented by argument of counsel for our consideration are, that the verdict is against the evidence, and the- court erred in giving instructions for appellee and refusing proper instructions asked by appellant.

These questions can not be considered by us, mdess ]-resented by a bill of exceptions containing the evidence and instructions.

There is a paper in the record purporting to be a bill of exceptions, but is neither signed nor sealed by the judge who tried the cause, as the statute requires, in order to make it a part of the record. In such case, such a paper, though copied into the record by the clerk below, constitutes no part of the record and can not be considered by this court. James v. Sprague, 2 Scam. 5; Miller v. Jenkins, 44 Ill. 448; Reeves v. Reeves, 54 Ill. 332.

We can not therefore inquire whether the court erred as suggested in argument.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Ill. App. 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-duff-illappct-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack