Case ID: ill-app_199/html/0484-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Baker", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

F. Thomas Malecki, Defendant in Error, v. Julius N. Heldman, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,602.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. New-comes, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 29, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action in the Municipal Court of Chicago by F. Thomas Malecki, plaintiff, against Julius N. Heldman, defendant, for services rendered the defendant by the plaintiff. To reverse a judgment for $105 for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
    Plaintiff testified that defendant employed him to work for the Central Trust Company in a case in which defendant represented certain creditors of the Woolen Mills Company, a bankrupt, and the Trust Company was receiver of the bankrupt, and promised to pay him $5 per day out of his own pocket for such services. Defendant testified that he did not employ plaintiff nor promise to pay him any sum whatever out of his own pocket. The clerk’s record showed a verdict for plaintiff for $105 entered February 25, 1915; that the defendant moved the court for a new trial and after several postponements the motion was heard and denied May 1,1915.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 27
      
      —when question not preserved by bill oj exceptions or stenographic report not reviewed. The reviewing court will not investigate whether the evidence sustains the verdict where it is not shown by bill of exceptions or stenographic report that a motion for a new trial was made and overruled and an exception taken thereto.
    2. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 28*—when objections to instructions not considered on review. The reviewing court cannot consider objections to instructions where no objection was made to them in the trial court nor any instruction asked for by plaintiff in error and refused.
    Simon La Grou, for plaintiff in error.
    George L. Schein and Leo H. Hoffman, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.