W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co. v. Barnett

Appellate Court of Illinois

W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co. v. Barnett

185 Ill. App. 82

DecidedDecember 27, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 185 Ill. App. 82 (W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co. v. Barnett) 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

W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co. v. Barnett, 185 Ill. App. 82 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Bills and notes, § 358*—when plea of want of consideration demurrable. In an action on a promissory note, a special plea of want of consideration setting up that the note was given for a release of defendant by plaintiff from a void contract of guaranty, held inartificially drawn and subject to special demurrer. 2. Appeal and ebboe, § 1361*—•when refusal to permit filing of additional pleas not error. Refusal of court to permit the filing of additional pleas, held not error, where application to file them was not made until the case was called for trial. 3. Appeal and ebboe, § 986*—when denial of motion for continuance not presented for review. The question whether the court erred in overruling a motion for a continuance is not preserved for review, where there is no motion for a continuance or showing thereon in the bill of exceptions.

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

Mr. Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Bills and notes, § 358*—when plea of want of consideration demurrable. In an action on a promissory note, a special plea of want of consideration setting up that the note was given for a release of defendant by plaintiff from a void contract of guaranty, held inartificially drawn and subject to special demurrer. 2. Appeal and ebboe, § 1361*—•when refusal to permit filing of additional pleas not error. Refusal of court to permit the filing of additional pleas, held not error, where application to file them was not made until the case was called for trial. 3. Appeal and ebboe, § 986*—when denial of motion for continuance not presented for review. The question whether the court erred in overruling a motion for a continuance is not preserved for review, where there is no motion for a continuance or showing thereon in the bill of exceptions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 Ill. App. 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-t-rawleigh-medical-co-v-barnett-illappct-1913.