Vosseler v. Wheeler

99 Ill. App. 21, 1900 Ill. App. LEXIS 573
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided November 1, 1901·Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a judgment of restitution in a forcible detainer suit begun by the appellee against the appellant.

The merits of the case have been heard, and judgment in favor of the plaintiff had twice, once before the justice and again before a judge of the Superior Court, a jury having been waived.

The purported bill of exceptions is not sealed, and for that reason the evidence, upon which all assigned errors are based, can not be considered by us. Higgins v. Hide and Leather Bank, 88 Ill. App. 33; Elder v. Bennett, 79 Ill. App. 335; Bloomington v. Lishka, 78 Ill. App. 389; Harman v. Brigham, 78 Ill. App. 427.

We might add that we have looked into the so-called bill of exceptions sufficiently to satisfy us that the judgment below was not wrong. Affirmed.

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

Vosseler v. Wheeler, 99 Ill. App. 21, 1900 Ill. App. LEXIS 573 (Ill. Ct. App. 1901).

99 Ill. App. 21 (Vosseler v. Wheeler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Bloomington v. Lishka
78 Ill. App. 389 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1898)
Harman v. Brigham
78 Ill. App. 427 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1898)
Elder v. Bennett
79 Ill. App. 335 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1898)
Higgins v. Hide & Leather National Bank
88 Ill. App. 33 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1899)