Case Name: A. H. Baker, Appellant, v. William R. Morrison, Appellee
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1917-03-26
Citations: 204 Ill. App. 429
Docket Number: Gen. No. 22,745
Parties: A. H. Baker, Appellant, v. William R. Morrison, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 204
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
A. H. Baker, Appellant, v. William R. Morrison, Appellee.
Gen. No. 22,745.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Physicians and stjegeons, § 29 —when evidence sufficient to sustain claim, of recoupment. In an action by a veterinarian for services, evidence held sufficient to sustain defendant’s claim of recoupment, tending to show loss of a number of defendant’s horses from lack of attention by plaintiff.
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed March 26, 1917.
Rehearing denied April 9, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Action by A. H. Baker, plaintiff, against William B. Morrison, defendant, to recover a balance claimed to be due for professional services as a veterinary surgeon rendered to horses belonging to defendant, pursuant to a contract. From a judgment for plaintiff for one dollar, plaintiff appeals.
Defendant claimed in defense that plaintiff had negligently failed to perform the contract, thereby causing defendant’s horses to suffer and die, with resultant damages.
Samuel B. Hill and William Scott Stewart, for appellant.
George L. Turnbull, for appellee.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Appeal and error, § 1327 —when propriety of judgment is presumed. Where the abstract failed to show whether a defendant's claim was in set-off or recoupment, held that the propriety of the judgment for plaintiff for one dollar would be presumed.
3. Appeal and error, § 1575*—when judgment not reversibly erroneous. A judgment for so small an amount as one dollar held not reversible for a technical error.