Case ID: ill-app_20/html/0670-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 86—2482.
    Gray v. Fuller Electrical Co.
    This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Isaac II. Gray against the Fuller Electrical Company, to recover certain commissions upon a sale of electrical apparatus, alleged to have been made by the plaintiff as agent for the defendant. The trial was had before the court without a jury, resulting in a finding and judgment for the defendant. The bill of exceptions fails to show that any exception was taken to the finding or judgment, and therefore, upon well recognized rules of law, said finding can not be assigned for error, nor can the court look into the record to determine whether it is supported by the evidence or not. Martin v. Foulke, 114 Ill. 206 ; David M. Force Manufacturing Co. v. Horton, 74 Id. 310; Sherman v. Skinner, 83 Id. 584; Parsons v. Evans, 17 Id. 238; Nimmo v. Kuykendall, 85 Id. 476; Bills v. Stanton, 69 Id. 51; Village of Hyde Park v. Cornell, 4 Bradwell, 602 ; Duncan v. Chandler, 5 Id. 499.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed Dec. 22, 1886.
   Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judge below, Joseph E. Gary. Attorneys, for appellant, Mr Sidney C. Eastman ; for appellee, Messrs. Dow & Burnham.