Case Name: Benedict Fishback v. Emil Guelich et al.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1881-10-06
Citations: 9 Ill. App. 405
Docket Number: 
Parties: Benedict Fishback v. Emil Guelich et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
Benedict Fishback v. Emil Guelich et al.
Judgment affirmed. — The court is of opinion that no injustice has been done, and as no objection is taken to other instructions, they -will not be noticed.
Appeal from the City Court of Alton; the Hon. Henry S. Baker, Judge, presiding.
Opinion filed October 6, 1881.
Mr. John J. Brenholt, for appellant;
that possession of a promissory note is grima facie evidence of ownership, cited Jewett & Root v. Cook, 81 Ill. 260; Palmer v. Gardiner, 77 Ill. 143; Walker v. Douglass, 70 Ill. 445; Curtis v. Martin, 20 Ill. 557.
Where payment is alleged by defendant and denied by plaintiff, the production of the note in his possession by plaintiff, uncancelled, corroborates his testimony to the extent that will give him a right to recover. Steambaugh v. Hallan, 48 Ill. 305; Wade v. Atkins, 58 Ill. 64.
Messrs. Wise & Davis, for appellees;
that the verdict not being manifestly against the weight of evidence, it will not be set aside, cited Aurora F. Ins. Co. v. Eddy, 55 Ill. 213; City of Peru v. French, 55 Ill. 317; Lawrence v. Hagerman, 56 Ill. 58; Kuhnen v. Blitz, 56 Ill. 171; T. P. & W. R. R. Co. v. Firth, 60 Ill. 451; Walker v. Martin, 59 Ill. 348; Young v. Schorling, 60 Ill. 148; Keller v. Rossbach, 61 Ill. 342.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We cannot say that injustice was done by the verdict, nor that there is such vice in the third instruction as to warrant a reversal for that cause alone.
Ho objection is taken in the brief or argument to the other instructions, and we do not feel called upon to search for defects that are not suggested. The judgment will therefore he affirmed.
Affirmed.