Case Name: Royal E. Barber v. W. B. Hawley
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1886-01-25
Citations: 116 Ill. 91
Docket Number: 
Parties: Royal E. Barber v. W. B. Hawley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 91–92

Head Matter:
Royal E. Barber v. W. B. Hawley.
Filed at Ottawa January 25, 1886.
Practice—of presenting and preserving questions of law, on trial before the court without a jury. Where a trial is had before the court without a jury, and no propositions of law are submitted to the court to be passed upon, and no exception is taken to any ruling of the court save as to the judgment, and the judgment is affirmed by the Appellate Court, this court has nothing to review, and will affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District;— heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. George W. Stipp, Judge, presiding.
Mr. S. W. Randall, for the appellant.
Messrs. Hill & Dibell, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Court for the Second District, affirming a judgment of the circuit court upon a claim for board and services, which originally had been presented in the probate court for allowance against the estate of a decedent.
The record presents no question of law for our decision. In the circuit court the trial was before the court without a jury. There was no proposition of law submitted to be passed upon by the court, and no exception to any ruling whatever of the court, save to the judgment itself. The question arising is one upon controverted facts as to the amount of the allowance, where the decision of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment below can not be reviewed by us.
The circuit court appears to have applied the bar of the Statute of Limitations to the portion of the claim anterior to five years next before the time of the filing of the claim. No legal question was raised in regard to the statute, the only question in respect of it being, whether, under the controverted facts, the proof was sufficient to avoid the bar of the statute as to the part of the claim to which it was applied.
The judgment of the Appellate Court must be affirmed.
Jadgment affirmed.