Werner Co. v. McLaughlin

Appellate Court of Illinois

Werner Co. v. McLaughlin

98 Ill. App. 53, 1900 Ill. App. LEXIS 542

DecidedNovember 1, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 98 Ill. App. 53 (Werner Co. v. McLaughlin) 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

Werner Co. v. McLaughlin, 98 Ill. App. 53, 1900 Ill. App. LEXIS 542 (Ill. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Hr. Presiding Justice Freeman

delivered the opinion of the court.

This cause has been here before, and at that time the judgment in favor of defendant in error was reversed, this court holding that “ the finding of the trial court can not be sustained by the testimony as the same is preserved in this record.”

In addition to the evidence in the former trial the defendant in error introduced four letters which were not offered before. It seems to be conceded that these letters constitute all the new evidence introduced at the second trial. The only question we have to consider is whether this additional evidence strengthens the plaintiff’s case, so that taken in connection with the other evidence given at the former trial, the whole evidence now sustains the judgment. The attorneys for defendant in error have failed to point out in what respect anything contained in these four letters throws any new light upon the controversy. A careful examination fails to show that the plaintiff has strengthened his case and for the reasons given at the former hearing in this court, the judgment of the County Court must be reversed and there will be a finding of facts.

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

Hr. Presiding Justice Freeman

delivered the opinion of the court.

This cause has been here before, and at that time the judgment in favor of defendant in error was reversed, this court holding that “ the finding of the trial court can not be sustained by the testimony as the same is preserved in this record.”

In addition to the evidence in the former trial the defendant in error introduced four letters which were not offered before. It seems to be conceded that these letters constitute all the new evidence introduced at the second trial. The only question we have to consider is whether this additional evidence strengthens the plaintiff’s case, so that taken in connection with the other evidence given at the former trial, the whole evidence now sustains the judgment. The attorneys for defendant in error have failed to point out in what respect anything contained in these four letters throws any new light upon the controversy. A careful examination fails to show that the plaintiff has strengthened his case and for the reasons given at the former hearing in this court, the judgment of the County Court must be reversed and there will be a finding of facts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 Ill. App. 53, 1900 Ill. App. LEXIS 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/werner-co-v-mclaughlin-illappct-1901.