Case ID: ill_231/html/0061-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Hand", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Jacobson, Appellant, vs. The Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company, Appellee.
    
      Opinion filed December 17, 1907.
    
    1. Appeals and errors—when no question is presented for review by the Supreme Court. In a suit at law tried, by agreement, without a jury, if no propositions of law are submitted to the trial court and no complaint is made as to the rulings on evidence the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming that of the trial court is final, and there is no question open to review by the Supreme Court on further appeal.
    2. Same—-motion for a new trial does not take place of propositions of law. No motion for a new trial is necessary in a case tried, by agreement, without a jury, and such motion, if made, does not supply the place of propositions of law, which are necessary in order to preserve for review legal questions involved in the case.
    
      Appeal from the Branch Appellate Court for the First District;—heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. George W. Patton, Judge, presiding.
    John C. & W. J. King, and Blum & Blum, for appellant.
    Bates, Harding & Atkins, for appellee.
   Mr. Chief Justice Hand

delivered the opinion of the court:

In this case there was a trial before the superior court of Cook county, by agreement, without a jury. No written propositions to be held as law by the court in the decision of the case were submitted to the court, as required by section 41 of the Practice act. The judgment of the Appellate Court is binding on this court as to the facts, and no errors are complained of as having been committed by the trial court in the admission or exclusion of evidence. There are therefore no questions of law preserved for review in this court upon this record. Hawes v. Sternheim, 156 Ill. 341; Swain v. First Nat. Bank, 201 id. 416.

It is urged the motion for a new trial preserved the legal questions involved upon this record for review in this court. A motion for a new trial in a case tried before the court without a jury is not necessary, and in case such motion is made it does not supply the omission to submit written propositions of law. Union Ins. Co. v. Crosby, 172 Ill. 335.

The judgment of the Appellate Court will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.