Albrecht v. Omphgent Tp.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 16598.,16598. |
| Citation | 324 Ill. 200,154 N.E. 898 |
| Parties | ALBRECHT v. OMPHGENT TP. et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by Paul Albrecht against Omphgent Township and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Cause transferred to Appellate Court.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; J. F. Gillham, judge.
R. F. Tunnell, Jr., of Edwardsville, for appellant.
Terry, Gueltig & Powell, of Edwardsville, for appellees.
While driving on a highway in Omphgent township, in Madison county, on the night of October 2, 1921, Paul Albrecht's horse became frightened at a flash of lightning and shied to the left side of a bridge that he was crossing in his buggy, and the horse, buggy, and himself were thereby thrown into a ravine. Albrecht brought suit against Omphgent township and Christ Bunte, ex-highway commissioner, before a justice of the peace in said county, for damages to his horse, buggy, and harness caused as aforesaid. He recovered a judgment beforethe justice of the peace, and upon an appeal to the circuit court of Madison county a trial before a jury was had. At the conclusion of the evidence for the plaintiff the defendants orally moved the court to find them not guilty. The court allowed the motion as to defendant Omphgent township and instructed the jury to find it not guilty, but denied the motion as to defendant Bunte. Bunte then introduced in evidence the court files and evidence taken in a certain cause in the circuit court of Madison county wherein Albrecht was plaintiff and Bunte, ex-highway commissioner, was defendant. The record in that case discloses that Albrecht had claimed damages against Bunte for personal injuries to himself arising out of the same circumstances and accident as in this cause and had charged Bunte with negligence in maintaining the bridge in question. The record in that cause further discloses that upon a trial before a jury the verdict had been in favor of Bunte, and after overruling a motion for a new trial the court had entered judgment in favor of Bunte and against Albrecht. At the conclusion of the evidence for Bunte in the instant trial his attorney moved the court to instruct the jury to find him not guilty on the ground that there had been a former adjudication of the question of negligence and of liability involved in this suit by the judgment in the former cause. The court allowed the motion and so instructed the jury. Thereafter Albrecht made a motion for a new trial, alleging that the court erred in sustaining the motion to dismiss because of a former adjudication; that the court erred in finding that issues for the defendant; that there was no proper motion before the court to dismiss the cause because of a former adjudication; and that the decision of the court was against the evidence and contrary to the law of the case. The court overruled this motion for a new trial and entered judgment in favor of Bunte and against Albrecht. Albrecht has perfected this appeal directly to this court on the ground that a constitutional question is involved.
[1] Appellant contends in this court that the action of the circuit court in sustaining the motion to dismiss the case as to Bunte because of a former adjudication took away his right to recover damages for the injury to his property and thereby deprived him of his property without due process of law, in violation of section 2 of the bill of rights found in the Constitution of Illinois. This is the only ground urged in this court to sustain the appeal directly from the trial court, and it was not presented to the trial court in the motion for a new trial. We have repeatedly held that a question cannot be presented for decision in this court without the same having been presented to the trial court. This rule applies to constitutional questions. Board of Supervisors v. Highway Com'rs, 164 Ill. 574, 45 N. E. 983;Mechanics' & Traders' Ass'n v. People, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heine v. Degen
...arrived at without due process of law. Genslinger v. New Illinois Athletic Club, 332 Ill. 316, 320, 163 N.E. 707;Albrecht v. Omphghent Township, 324 Ill. 200, 154 N.E. 898;Cooper v. Palais Royal Theatre Co., 320 Ill. 44, 150 N.E. 401. The decisions in Hultberg v. Anderson, 252 Ill. 607, 97 ......
-
Merlo v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Northern Illinois
...Cour v. De La Cour, 363 Ill. 545, 2 N.E.2d 896;Genslinger v. New Illinois Athletic Club, 332 Ill. 316, 163 N.E. 707;Albrecht v. Omphghent Township, 324 Ill. 200, 154 N.E. 898;Cooper v. Palais Royal Theatre Co., 320 Ill. 44, 150 N.E. 401. The constitutional requirement of due process of law ......
-
Fulford v. O'Connor
...thus invoked is a familiar one. See: e. g., Cooper v. Palais Royal Theatre Co., 320 Ill. 44, 49, 150 N.E. 401; Albrecht v. Omphghent Township, 324 Ill. 200, 202-203, 154 N.E. 898. Properly understood, however, it does not defeat jurisdiction of this appeal. It is, of course, clear from the ......
-
Phelps v. Bd. of Appeals of City of Chicago
...court unless the question was in some way presented to the trial court for its decision and preserved for review. Albrecht v. Omphgent Township, 324 Ill. 200, 154 N. E. 898;Davis v. Industrial Com., 297 Ill. 29, 130 N. E. 333, 15 A. L. R. 732;McNeil & Higgins Co. v. Neenah Cheese Co., 290 I......