Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Ill. App. 419

Butt v. Lee

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided December 7, 1888

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1888-12-07

<p>Practice — Defective Record — Motion for Neiv Trial — Clerk's Statements</p> <p>1. Where the bill of exceptions contains no motion for a new trial, and no exception is preserved to the overruling of such a motion, an assignment of error that the court erred in refusing a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, can not be considered by this court.</p> <p>2. A statement in the judgment order, as copied by the clerk into the record, to the effect that the motion for a new trial was overruled and a new trial denied, does not make such motion a part of the record.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1920

2 state decisions

Relies on Boyle v. Levings · Smith v. Kahill · Deitrich v. Waldron

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-12-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Moran, J.

¶1Appellant brought an action against appellee, alleging a breach of a certain contract, and claiming liquidated damages in the sum of $3,000, as provided by the contract.

¶2The case was tried by a jury, and a verdict found in favor of plaintiff, but the damages were assessed at $50.

¶3The only error assigned on this appeal is that “the court erred in refusing a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.”

¶4There is in the bill of exceptions no motion for new trial set out, and no reference whatever to any such motion. In the judgment order of the court, as copied into the record by the clerk, it is stated that the plaintiff’s motion theretofore entered therein for a new trial in said cause is overruled and a new trial denied, but such statement by the clerk does not make a motion for a new trial a part of the record. There is. nowhere in the record any exception preserved to the overruling of any motion for a new trial, and hence the error assigned can not be considered by this court Smith et al. v. Kahill, 17 Ill. 67; Boyle v. Levings, 28 Ill. 314; Duncan v. Chandler, 5 Ill. App. 499; Deitrich v. Waldron, 90 Ill. 115.

¶5The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

/27/illapp/419 · .json · Public domain