Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

42 Ill. 291

Gardner v. Hayne

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1866

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1866-11-15

Aaron Shaw, Judge, presiding.. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by George W. Haynie, in the Eichland Circuit Court, against James Gardner. The declaration counted for money due and owing for the use and occupancy of a messuage and buildings thereon, and also for money had and received by the defendant from the plaintiff. Afterward, defendant filed a general demurrer to each count of the declaration, which was overruled by the court.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1935

6 state decisions

2018661870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Chief Justice Walker

¶2It is urged as a ground of reversal, that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to plaintiff’s declaration. In the view we take of the case, we deem it unnecessary to consider that question. Defendant, after the demurrer was overruled, pleaded in bar to the action. This was a waiver to all objections raised on the demurrer, unless the declaration was so defective that a judgment could not be rendered on it, and a motion in arrest was made. If the party was dissatisfied with the decision on the demurrer, he should have abided by it, and presented the question to be reviewed in this court.

¶3It is insisted, that the court erred in admitting the deposition of Graff, against appellant’s objection. The record does disclose the fact, that he objected, but it fails to appear that he excepted to the decision of the court in admitting it. A decision of this character will not be reviewed, unless the party excepts to it when made. The exception must appear in the bill of exceptions, or it will be presumed that it was waived. We cannot know but appellant, although he objected to the evidence when offered, was willing when the objection was disallowed to permit it to be read. If he was still unwilling, he should have excepted to the decision admitting it.

¶4The transcript in this case is so confused, and badly arranged, that we find it difficult to ascertain what it does properly contain, but we have read it carefully, and fail to find that the bill of exceptions contains a statement that it presents all of the evidence heard in the court below. It is the settled and uniform practice of this court, not to disturb a verdict, or the finding of the court below, on a motion for a new trial, because such finding is not sustained by the evidence, unless it appears that all of the testimony, upon which it is based, is contained in the record. In the absence of such a statement we will indulge the presumption, that there was other and sufficient evidence to warrant the finding. The party alleging error must show it. And, when he alleges that the finding is not sustained by the evidence, he must establish the averment by bringing all of the evidence in the case before this court, that it can be seen that it is insufficient. The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/42/ill/291 · .json · Public domain