Burnett v. Snapp

Decided June 11, 1891

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1891-06-11

<p>Practice—Bill of Exceptions—Must Show Motion for New Trial.</p> <p>A recital in the judgment, by the clerk, that a motion was made for a new trial, is a nullity. The fact that such motion was made must appear in the bill of exceptions signed by the judge.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1896

2 state decisions

Relies on Martin v. Foulke · Wolf v. Campbell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-06-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

C. B. Smith, P. J.

¶1This was a suit begun before a justice of the peace and brought to the Circuit Court by appeal. The suit was to recover for a month’s rent for a certain house after appellant had abandoned it and moved away. Appellee had judgment below, and appellant now brings the record here on appeal. The bill of exceptions show no motion for a new trial nor any exception to the judgment. The' recital in the judgment by the clerk that a motion was made for a new trial amounts to nothing. It must be in the bill of exceptions and signed by the judge. There is, therefore, nothing for us to review. Martin v. Foulk, 114 Ill. 206; Wolfe v. Campbell, 23 Ill. App. 483.

¶2The judgment will be affirmed.

¶3Judgment affirmed.