Case Name: J. C. Graff and John Schultz, trading as J. C. Graff & Company, Defendants in Error, v. George Moench, Plaintiff in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1916-04-21
Citations: 201 Ill. App. 140
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. C. Graff and John Schultz, trading as J. C. Graff & Company, Defendants in Error, v. George Moench, Plaintiff in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 201
Pages: 140–141

Head Matter:
J. C. Graff and John Schultz, trading as J. C. Graff & Company, Defendants in Error, v. George Moench, Plaintiff in Error.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Gaming, § 43 —when evidence sufficient to show that transactions are of gambling nature. In an action to recover a balance alleged to be due the plaintiffs on account of transactions made on the Chicago Board of Trade, held that the evidence showed that such transactions were gambling transactions, and that a verdict for the plaintiff was clearly and manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Error to the Circuit Court of Schuyler county; the Hon. Gut R. Wiliuams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed April 21, 1916.
Statement of the Case.
Assumpsit by J. C. Graff and John Schultz, trading as J. C. Graff & Company, plaintiffs, against George Moench, defendant. To review a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
The action was to recover an alleged balance due on account of deals transacted on the Board of Trade of Chicago and some items of merchandise sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The evidence heard was substantially the same as appeared in the record on a former appeal, 181 Ill. App. 127.
B. O. Willard and L. A. Jarman, for plaintiff in error.
Glass & Bottenberg and Chiperfield & Chiperfield, for defendants in error.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number. „

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Trial, § 204*—when refusal to direct verdict is error.' In an action of assumpsit, covering several items, the refusal of the trial court to direct, at the defendant's request, a verdict against him on a certain item for which the evidence showed him liable, held error.