East St. Louis Electric St. R. Co. v. Cauley
| Citation | 36 N.E. 106,148 Ill. 490 |
| Parties | EAST ST. LOUIS ELECTRIC ST. R. CO. v. CAULEY. |
| Decision Date | 16 January 1894 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to appellate court, fourth district; B. H. Canby, Judge.
Action on the case, brought by Patrick Cauley, by his next friend, against the East St. Louis Electric Street-Railroad Company. Plaintiff obtained judgment, which was affirmed by the appellate court. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Charles W. Thomas, for plaintiff in error.
Jesse M. Freels and A. R. Taylor, for defendant in error.
This record shows no exceptions by appellant to overruling objections, to the admission of evidence, to the giving or refusing of instructions. No exception was taken to the overruling of the motion for a new trial. The only exception by appellant is in the following words: ‘But the court overruled the motion, and rendered a judgment in accordance with the finding of the jury; to the rendition of which judgment the defendant then and there excepted.’ This exception was taken on entering judgment after overruling motion for new trial, and it was held by the appellate court that the order overruling a motion for a new trial and the rendition of the judgment on the verdict of a jury were separate acts, and that court held the only question before it was the sufficiency of the judgment, and that, as no defect in that regard was suggested, the judgment was affirmed. From that affirmance this appeal is prosecuted, and it is urged-First, that the order of court denying the motion for a new trial and entering judgment is one order; and, second, that a recital in the judgment order of the court that an exception was duly taken to the denying of a motion for new trial opens the record, so that the error assigned, that the court erred in denying the motion, may be considered. Both propositions so urged must be held adversely to the appellant's contention. A general exception cannot be taken to several rulings as an exception in gross, but each exception must be taken to each ruling as it arises in the trial. Dickhut v. Durrell, 11 Ill. 72;Johnson v. McCulloch, 89 Ind. 270;Walter v. Walter, 117 Ind. 247, 20 N. E. 148. A bill of exceptions must show the entering of a motion for new trial, its being overruled, and an exception to the order overruling the same, before an appellate court can consider any question of the admission or sufficiency of evidence or error in giving or refusing instructions. The failure of the bill of exceptions to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valley Nat'l Bank v. 58 Vlimp, LLC
... ... due under the subject note and mortgage ( seeRPAPL 1321; Bank of East Asia, Ltd. v. Smith, 201 A.D.2d 522, 607 N.Y.S.2d 431 [2d Dept 1994]; ... ...
-
Baldwin v. Moroney
... ... Williams, 102 Va. 733, 47 S. E. 844;Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. East Lake, etc., Drainage Dist., 134 Ill. 384, 25 N. E. 781, 10 L. R. A ... ...
-
Kane v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
... ... 170; St ... Joseph v. Ensworth, 65 Mo. 628; Railroad v ... Cauley, 148 Ill. 490; Mfg. Co. v. Lambertson, ... 74 Kan. 304; Walter v ... point about three miles east of Admire, Kansas, and that the ... track at said point was negligently ... close proximity to electric wires which were without ... insulation and which were heavily charged ... ...
-
Yarber v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co.
...overruled, and an exception preserved to the order overruling that motion. Among the cases so holding are East St. Louis Electric Railroad Co. v. Cauley, 148 Ill. 490, 36 N. E. 106;Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 191 Ill. 594, 61 N. E. 334;Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.......