Case ID: ill-app_202/html/0570-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Higbee", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christ Knebelkamp, Appellee, v. Wiskamp Brothers et al., Appellants.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal fro-m the Circuit Court oí St. Clair county; the Hon. George A. Crow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed November 13, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Christ Knebelkamp, plaintiff, against Wiskamp Brothers, Louis C. Wiskamp and Walter F. Wiskamp, defendants, on a certain promissory note given by defendants to plaintiff. From a judgment for $191.10 for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
    James O. Miller, for appellants.
    C. H. G-. Heinfelden, for appellee.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Building and construction contracts, § 103
      
      —when evidence is insufficient to sustain counterclaim. In an action upon a promissory note given for the balance claimed to be due for the construction of a building, to which a counterclaim was presented, where the evidence showed said note had been renewed from time to time for several years, during which time no claim had been made of the offset, and the bill presented for the work showed a charge for such offset, and the testimony of the parties was conflicting, held that the finding of the court rejecting such counterclaim should not be disturbed.
    2. Building and construction contracts, § 97*—when plans and specifications offered in support of counterclaim are properly excluded. Where a counterclaim was presented in an action upon a promissory note given for the balance claimed to be due for the construction of a building, the basis of such counterclaim being that by a change in the plans and specifications the payee of the note was relieved of the expense of trussing the roof, and this was to offset the expense of an extra ceiling, held that there was no error in excluding from the evidence such plans and specifications offered in support of such counterclaim.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Higbee

delivered the opinion of the court.