Case ID: ill-app_189/html/0628-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Brown", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas J. Healey, Defendant in Error, v. H. Stern, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 20,172.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Rooney, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed November 30, 1914.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and error, § 578
      
      —necessity of exception to entry of judgment. Decisions of the Supreme Court that the question of the weight of the evidence cannot he considered in the Appellate Court where the ease was tried without a jury and no exception was taken to the entry of the judgment, although the entry of such judgment was resisted and a motion to vacate it made immediately thereafter, referred to as hardly applicable to cases brought after the amendment of May 31, 1911, to section 81 of the Practice Act (J. & A. ¶ 8618,) but the question not decided.
    2. Sales, § 329
      
      —sufficiency of evidence. In an action to recover for goods sold, where practically the only issue was whether the sale was made according to the weights at the place from where they were shipped or according to the weights at the place to which they were shipped, a finding in favor of plaintiff held sustained by the evidence.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Thomas J. Healey against H. Stern in the Municipal Court of Chicago to recover a sum claimed to be due for scrap iron sold to defendant. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $249.56, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
    Joseph W. Schulman, for plaintiff in error.
    Benjamin B. Morris, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.