Case Name: W. F. Parish Machinery Co. v. Charles A. Shieren and F. A. M. Burrell, Copartners as Chas. A. Shieren & Co.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1896-02-28
Citations: 62 Ill. App. 649
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. F. Parish Machinery Co. v. Charles A. Shieren and F. A. M. Burrell, Copartners as Chas. A. Shieren & Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 649–650

Head Matter:
W. F. Parish Machinery Co. v. Charles A. Shieren and F. A. M. Burrell, Copartners as Chas. A. Shieren & Co.
1. Trial by the Court—Testimony Conflicting.—Where the testimony is conflicting, the trial is by the court without a jury; and where no propositions of Taw are presented, so that it can be seen upon what theory the case was tried, or that the judgment is wrong, it will be affirmed.
Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Jonas Hutchinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the.October term, 1895.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed February 28, 1896.
Stillman & Martyn, attorneys for appellant.
Ashcraft, Gordon & Cox, attorneys for appellees.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice Gary
delivered the opinion of the Court.
April 10, 1891, two persons made their note to the order of the appellant for the sum of §300, payable four months after date. April 12, 1891, the appellant directed the shipment of goods to those persons, by the appellees, to the value of §274.53, adding to the order, " bill and shipping bill to us." The note was at the same time indorsed to the appellees. It remains unpaid.
The question before the court was whether that note was taken in payment of, collateral security for, or in any way affecting the primary or continuing liability of the appellant. The evidence was conflicting.
The trial was by the court.
Ho propositions of law were presented to the court*so that it can not be told either what theory the' court tried the case upon, nor what conclusion it reached upon the facts. On the one side is testimony that the goods were sold on sixty days time, and of promises by the appellant to pay after that time, and after the note matured. On the other side is testimony that the note was taken as payment for the goods. On the whole, it can not be seen that the judgment is wrong, and it is affirmed.