Case ID: ill-app_208/html/0612-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry Strohmeyer, Appellee, v. William Jamison, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 6,468.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and error, § 1410
      
      —when verdict is not against manifest weight of evidence. A verdict held not against the manifest weight of the evidence, in an action to recover for work done by piaintiff in building a porch and making other improvements for defendant.
    2. Appeal and error, § 1236*—when defendant estopped to urge error in admission of evidence. Defendant was estopped to urge error as to the admission of a certain hook account in evidence, that it was not entitled to he admitted or considered as such account, where it appeared defendant had withdrawn objection to its admission at the end of the trial and let it go to the jury.
    3. Appeal and error, § 1535*—when instruction on determination of preponderance of evidence is not reversibly erroneous. An instruction as to determining the preponderance of the evidence which omitted the number of witnesses as a factor after telling the jury that the preponderance does not necessarily depend upon the number, was erroneous, but not reversible error where the question was unimportant.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of La Salle county; the Hon. Samuel C. Stough, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed November 22, 1917.
    Statement of the Case. - -
    Action Tby Henry Strohmeyer, plaintiff, against William Jamison, defendant, to recover a balance due for building a porch and making other improvements. From a judgment for plaintiff for $206.06, defendant appeals.
    McDougall & Chapman, for appellant.
    Browne & Wiley, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.