Case Name: George B. Kerr v. H. R. Smiley, for use of Leonard Peterson and George B. Fisher, as Leonard Peterson & Co.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1898-07-16
Citations: 77 Ill. App. 88
Docket Number: 
Parties: George B. Kerr v. H. R. Smiley, for use of Leonard Peterson and George B. Fisher, as Leonard Peterson & Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 88–88

Head Matter:
George B. Kerr v. H. R. Smiley, for use of Leonard Peterson and George B. Fisher, as Leonard Peterson & Co.
1. Appellate Court Practice—Defective “Briefs and Arguments.” —When the appellants do not point out or refer to the rulings of the trial court in admitting or excluding testimony, or in instructing the jury, which are claimed to be erroneous, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.
G-arnislunent.—1Trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for garnishor. Appeal by garnishee.-
Heard in the Branch Appellate Court of the.First District at the March term, 1898.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed July 16, 1898.
Wickett & Bruce, attorneys for appellant.
William A. Dotle, attorney for appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Horton
delivered the opinion of the court.
This court would be justified in affirming this case for-non-compliance with the rules of this court as to briefs. There is no pretense of compliance with the rules as to making "a short clear statement of the points and the authorities in support thereof," and there is not a single authority cited.
No point is presented by the assignment of errors except that the verdict and judgment are wrong. Appellant's " Brief and Argument " does not point out or refer to a single ruling of the trial court either in admitting or excluding testimony or in instructing the jury, which it is claimed is erroneous. Neither is there any conduct on the part of the jury or even of adverse counsel as to which complaint is made.
It is for the jury to determine the questions of fact. They have done so, and we see no reason to criticise their conclusion. They did just right.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.