Case ID: ill-app_186/html/0368-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Dibell", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Skilbeck and Brown, Appellees, v. Hans Andreasen, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 5,884.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake county; the Hon. Charles Whitney, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 15, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by G-erald W. Skilbeck and Evan Brown, co-partners trading as Skilbeck & Brown, against Hans Andreasen to recover a bill claimed to be owed plaintiffs for lathing done for defendant on a building. The suit was originally commenced before a justice where plaintiffs recovered a judgment for $63.83. On appeal to the Circuit Court plaintiffs had a verdict and judgment for $50. From the judgment of the Circuit Court, defendant appeals.
    Charles H. King, for appellant.
    E. V. Orvis, for appellees.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Building and construction contracts, § 97
      
      —admissibility of evidence. In an action for lathing done on a building, defendant testified that he paid a certain sum to a third person to secure other men to do part of the work not done by plaintiffs and such testimony was excluded. Held that exclusion of such testimony was proper where there was no testimony showing the hiring of such third person was necessary, the time spent by him in finding lathers or that such sum was a reasonable compensation.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and ebbob, § 472 —necessity of preserving objection to questions asked of witness by court. Though section 81 of the Practice Act, as amended in 1911, J & A. ¶ 8618, does away with the necessity for preserving an exception, it is still the law that counsel considering themselves injured by question asked of a witness by the court must object thereto and give the trial judge an opportunity to withdraw the objectionable question.

Whitney, J., took no part in this decision.