Martin v. Ehrenfels
| Decision Date | 30 April 1860 |
| Parties | AUGUSTUS MARTIN et al., Plaintiffs in Error,v.FREDERICK N. EHRENFELS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
24 Ill. 187
1860 WL 6375 (Ill.)
14 Peck (IL) 187
AUGUSTUS MARTIN et al., Plaintiffs in Error,
v.
FREDERICK N. EHRENFELS, Defendant in Error.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
April Term, 1860.
The fact that evidence was given to the jury, tending to show that parties sued here had been copartners in Europe, is not so irrelevant as to authorize the setting aside of a verdict.
In order to have this court decide, whether there was a variance between a note declared upon, and the one offered in evidence, the latter should be set out in the bill of exceptions.
If the evidence as to a fact is conflicting, the verdict will be sustained.
The affidavit of a juror, is not to be received, to impeach the conduct of the panel.
Cumulative evidence, or newly discovered evidence, touching upon a fact, about which evidence had already been received, unless it is conclusive as to such fact, or the fact that a witness can be impeached, is not cause for granting a new trial.
[24 Ill. 188]
THIS was a suit commenced by an affidavit, for an attachment for $1,773.68, on two promissory notes made by plaintiffs in error, under the firm of A. Martin & Co., one dated 16th September, 1858, payable to defendant in error, for $1,248, two months after date, with interest; the other, made by plaintiffs in error, under the same style, dated 29th September, 1858, payable to Greenbaum Brothers, or order, twelve days after date, for $500, with interest at ten per cent.; last note duly indorsed by payees to the defendant in error.That Martin had departed from the State of Illinois, and that Rudolph A. and William Slomer, were about to depart from said State, each of them having the intent to remove their effects from said State, to the injury of their creditors as aforesaid.
The declaration was on the two notes set out in the affidavit for attachment, and the common counts.
Ad damnum, $3,000.
General issue by Rudolph A. Slomer, and similiter.
General issue by William Slomer, and similiter.
Affidavit of Rudolph A. Slomer, verifying his plea.
Affidavit of William Slomer, verifying his plea.
Default of Martin was entered.
A jury was impanneled to try issue, and there was a verdict on issues joined, and damages assessed on default, 8th October, 1859, for $1,876.31.
Motion on part of Rudolph A. Slomer and William Slomer, for a new trial.
Motion for a new trial overruled by the court, and final judgment on verdict, and exception by defendants Slomers.
Appeal prayed and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co. v. Bliss
... ... R'y Co. 3 Coldwell, 222; Brickner v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. 2 Lans. 506.As to the objection to the verdict: City of Pekin v. Winkel, 77 Ill. 56; Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187; Reins v. The People, 30 Ill. 256.PLEASANTS, J.This was an action by appellee, under the statute, for damages for the death ... ...
-
J. E. Hayner & Co. v. Sherrer
... ... 52; Wood v. Hildreth, 73 Ill. 525; Millikin v. Taylor, 53 Ill. 509; Chicago v. Garrison, 52 Ill. 516; Pullian v. Ogle, 27 Ill. 189; Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187; Morgan v. Ryerson, 20 Ill. 343; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Hutchins, 34 Ill. 108; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Crandall, 41 Ill ... ...
-
People v. Holmes
... ... In the later cases which hold to the contrary (see Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187, 189, and Reins v. People, 30 Ill. 256, 274) no mention is made of Sawyer, and the statements that the affidavits of [69 ... ...
-
Bishop v. Bell
... ... Orr, 1 Gilm. 70; Morgan v. Ryerson, 20 Ill. 343; Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187; Pullian v. Ogle, 27 Ill. 189; Wallace v. Wren, 32 Ill. 146; Dietrich v. Rumsey, 45 Ill. 209; Underhill v. Fake, 46 Ill ... ...