Case ID: ill-app_142/html/0514-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cosmos Keller, Appellant, v. County of Jersey, Appellee.
    Appeals and ebboks—when nothing preserved for review. If it does not appear from the hill of exceptions that the appellant excepted to the finding and judgment of the court and if it does not appear that any propositions of law were submitted to the court to be held as the law of case, there is nothing preserved for review (except such questions as arise from the common law record).
    Assumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jersey county; the Hon. Owen P. Thompson, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the November term, 1907.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 21, 1908.
    Rehearing denied May 21, 1908.
    H. W. Pogue, for appellant.
    Vaughn & Chapman, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit by appellant against appellee to recover for services rendered as bailiff at the September term, 1908, of the Circuit Court of Jersey county. The case was tried by the court without a jury and resulted in a finding in favor of appellee and judgment against appellant for costs.

The only alleged errors urged upon our attention by appellant for a reversal of the judgment are, that the finding and judgment of the court is against the evidence, and that the court erred in applying the law to the facts as found.

It does not appear from the bill of exceptions that appellant .excepted to the finding and judgment of the court, neither does it appear that any propositions of law were submitted to the court to be held as the law of the case. In the absence of such showing in the bill of exceptions the action of the trial court in the respects indicated, is not properly preserved for review in this court. Grand Pacific Hotel Co. v. Pinkerton, 217 Ill. 61; Tucker v. Duncan, 224 Ill. 453.

The judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.

Motion to tax cost of additional abstract to appellant is denied.

Affirmed,.