Case Name: Henry W. Oetgen, Appellee, v. Jesse Lowe, Appellant
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1917-04-16
Citations: 204 Ill. App. 608
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry W. Oetgen, Appellee, v. Jesse Lowe, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 204
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
Henry W. Oetgen, Appellee, v. Jesse Lowe, Appellant.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the "Decision.
1. Appeal and error, § 450 —when objection as to inadmissibility of evidence may not be raised. An objection to evidence that it was not admissible under the pleadings cannot be made for the first time on appeal.
2. Appeal and ebbob, § 452*—when question whether stipulation is inadmissible in evidence not saved for review. Where a stipulation, admitted in evidence without objection, stated that a certain party would testify that he was the owner of certain land, that certain parties had contracted with him to pay certain drainage assessments levied against the land, that he never released the contract, and that he had not paid any assessments, the question whether the court erred in admitting the stipulation in evidence because the contract referred to could only be proved by the writing itself and the statement that “he never released” was a conclusion, held not saved for review.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Schuyler county; the Hon. Guy R. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed April 16, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Henry W. Oetgen, plaintiff, against Jesse Lowe, defendant, to recover under a certain contract by defendant to drain certain of plaintiff’s lands in a certain drainage district and to protect same from overflow and to pay certain assessments on other lands of plaintiff in said district. From a judgment for plaintiff for $328.57, defendant appeals.
L. A. Jarman and Glass & Bottenberg, for appellant. '
B. 0. Willard, for appellee.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson
delivered the opinion of the court.
3. Instructions, § 159*—when instruction to consider all instructions proper. An instruction held proper which required the jury to consider all of the instructions on the question of a release pleaded to the contract sued on.
4. Instructions, § 154*—when modification proper. Modification of instructions to conform to facts in evidence, held proper.