Case ID: ill_89/html/0151-01.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

Board of Trustees of Town 13 South, Range 3 West, v. Joshua L. Misenheimer et al.
    
    1. New trial—bill of exceptions must show the evidence. When the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence, it is impossible for this court to say that the evidence below did not authorize the verdict.
    2. Exception—necessary to present questions to this court. Where it does not appear that any exception was taken at the time to the giving or refusing of instructions, or to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, the correctness of the ruling below can not be considered by this court.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Union county; the Hon. Monroe C. Crawford, Judge, presiding.
    Mr. Jackson Frick, for the appellants.
   Per Curiam :

The bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence, and it is, therefore, impossible for us to say that the evidence below did not authorize the verdict returned by the jury. Ottawa Gaslight and Coke Company v. Graham, 35 Ill. 346; Buckland v. Goddard, 36 id. 206; Ballance v. Leonard, 37 id. 44; Esty v. Grant, 55 id. 341; Goodrich v. Minonk, 62 id. 121; Wilson v. McDowell, 65 id. 522; Culliner v. Nash, 76 id. 515; Henry v. Halloway, 78 id. 356.

It does not appear that any exception was taken at the time to the giving or refusing of instructions, nor to the overruling of the motion for a new trial. Any question, therefore, that might otherwise have been raised on these rulings, can not be considered. Grimes v. Butts, 65 Ill. 347 ; St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Company v. Dorsey, 68 id. 326; Brown v. Clement, id. 192; Seibel v. Vaughan, 69 id. 257.

The questions attempted to be discussed in appellants’ brief, can not, therefore, be considered.

The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.