Case ID: ill-app_185/html/0388-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Barnes", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George W. Randall and T. F. Randall, trading as G. W. Randall & Company, Defendants in Error, v. R. Whittingham, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,219.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Appeal and ebkob, § 95
      
      —when record shows nothing for review. Where assignments of error are predicated on a common-law record which shows no motion to vacate the judgment or exception thereto, but shows only the pleadings, orders relating thereto, which were acquiesced in, and the judgment, the record shows no points for review on errors saved in the court below, and the judgment will be allowed to stand.
    
      Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. James C. Mastín, Judge, Presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 10, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    ■ Action by George W. Randall and T. F. Randall, trading as G. W. Randall & Company, against R. Whittingham to recover for goods sold and delivered by plaintiffs to the defendant on an open account, consisting of 3,707 pounds of chickens at 6 cents per pound, amounting to $222.42, on which a credit of $50 was allowed. Defendant, in his affidavit of defense, admitted the purchase of the chickens at 5 cents per pound and alleg’ed that “about one-third” were delivered to him in an unwholesome and unsaleable condition. The court, deeming such allegation as an admission of a portion of the claim, entered judgment for $86.66, reserving the rest of the claim for future consideration. To reverse the judgment, defendant brings error.
    Victor A. G. Murrell, for plaintiff in error; P. W. Snider, of counsel.
    Blum, Wolpsohn & Blum, for defendants in error.
    
      
      Seo Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.