Allen v. Nichols
| Decision Date | 30 June 1873 |
| Citation | 1873 WL 8332,68 Ill. 250 |
| Parties | THOMAS E. ALLENv.OZEM B. NICHOLS, JR. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREWRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Clinton county; the Hon. SILAS L. BRYAN, Judge, presiding.
Mr. G. VAN HOOREBEKE, for the plaintiff in error.
It appears from this record that defendant in error, as administrator of the estate of Hiram Allen, deceased, brought an action of trover before a justice of the peace in Clinton county, against plaintiff in error, to recover a wagon claimed to have belonged to deceased in his life-time. A demand and refusal were proved, and, on a trial before the justice, plaintiff below recovered a judgment for $40. An appeal was prosecuted to the circuit court, where a trial was had before a jury, who found a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $10, and the court, after overruling a motion for a new trial, rendered a judgment on the verdict, from which this writ of error is prosecuted by defendant.
On the trial in the circuit court, it appeared that the wagon was in the possession of deceased at the time of his death, and that plaintiff in error took it into possession, and the administrator brought this action. On the trial in the circuit court, the widow was introduced as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, and testified in the cause, which is assigned as error. On a careful examination of the record, we fail to find that this testimony was objected to by plaintiff in error. In the absence of an exception appearing in the record, as has been held in numerous cases in this court, the objection can not be raised and discussed for the first time on error. Where evidence is received or a witness admitted without objection, we must presume that all grounds of exception are waived, and having been waived, the party can not afterwards object. As the question is not presented by the record, we do not determine whether the widow of intestate was a competent witness.
It is next urged that the court erred in giving for defendant in error this instruction:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Montemy
...the merits between the parties: Vaughn v. Thompson, 15 Ill. 39; Swingley v. Haynes, 22 Ill. 214; Thompson v. Sutton, 51 Ill. 213; Allen v. Nichols, 68 Ill. 250; Zuel v. Bowen, 78 Ill. 234. The summons issued by the justice was the commencement of the suit, and no demand maturing after that ......
-
Race v. Sullivan
...v. Farnell, 50 Ala. 546; Mitchell v Milhoam, 11 Kan. 617; Thompson v. Hoagland, 65 Ill. 310; Reynolds v. Palmer, 70 Ill. 288; Allen v. Nichols, 68 Ill. 250; Allen v. Payne, 45 Ill. 339. As to allowance of interest, Rev. Stat. chap. 74, § 2; Albee v. Wachter, 74 Ill. 173. That a proceeding f......
-
King v. Cook
... ... Kahill, 17 Ill. 67; Jackson v. Warren, 32 Ill. 331; Higgins v. The People, 39 Ill. 242; Board of Education v. Greenebaum, 39 Ill. 610; Allen v. Nichols, 68 Ill. 250; Reynolds v. Palmer, 70 Ill. 288; K. & I. R. R. Co. v. Chester, 62 Ill. 235; Allen v. Payne, 45 Ill. 339.A judgment will not ... ...
-
Mccoy v. Babcock
...That conceding the jurisdiction of the justice, on appeal to the Circuit Court the proofs alone determine the right of recovery: Allen v. Nichols, 68 Ill. 250; Swingley v. Haynes, 22 Ill. 214; O. & M. R. R. Co. v. McCutchin, 27 Ill. 10; Coulterville v. Gillen, 72 Ill. 599; Waterman v. Brist......