Bush v. Kindred
| Decision Date | 30 April 1858 |
| Citation | 1858 WL 6025,20 Ill. 93,10 Peck 93 |
| Parties | WILLIAM R. BUSH, Appellant,v.NAPOLEON B. KINDRED, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
20 Ill. 93
1858 WL 6025 (Ill.)
10 Peck (IL) 93
WILLIAM R. BUSH, Appellant,
v.
NAPOLEON B. KINDRED, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
April Term, 1858.
1. Where there is evidence to support a verdict, this court will not be inclined to disturb it; unless it is manifestly against its weight.
2. A party, when sued before a justice of the peace, is not bound to set off unliquidated damages. Such a practice would invest justices of the peace with a jurisdiction beyond the statutory limits.
THIS cause was tried in the county court of Peoria county. The case will be found fully stated in the opinion of the court.
H. Grove, for appellant.
Manning & Merriman, for appellee.
WALKER, J.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Kindred against Bush, in the Peoria county court, to the February term, 1858. The declaration contained special counts for damages claimed as growing out of a breach of contract, and the common counts in the usual form. The defendant filed five pleas: First, the general issue; second, payment; third, that the plaintiff was indebted to defendant in the sum of $95.05, on a judgment before a justice of the peace; fourth, setoff; and fifth, that defendant, before this suit was instituted, had sued plaintiff before a justice of the peace and recovered a judgment against the plaintiff, and that the cause of action in this case then existed, and could have been set off in that trial, and failing to do so, that judgment was a bar to this action. On these pleas there were issues. A trial was had before the court and a jury, and a verdict for plaintiff for thirty dollars damages. Defendant entered a motion for a new trial, which was overruled by the court, and a judgment rendered for plaintiff on the verdict. And defendant brings the case to this court by appeal.
It was urged that the verdict is against the weight of evidence, and should, for that reason, have been set aside. The evidence was conflicting and contradictory, and it was the province of the jury, in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, to weigh it and give it the credit to which it was entitled. This they have done, and we do not feel called upon to disturb their finding. There was evidence to support the verdict, and we would not be justified in disturbing it, unless the finding was manifestly against its weight. Allen v. Smith et al., 3 Scam., 97.
It was urged that this cause of action was barred by
[20 Ill. 94]
the plaintiff's having failed to...To continue reading
Request your trial
- Starke v. State
-
The Vill. of South Evanston v. Lynch
... ... 586; Bloom v. Crane, 24 Ill. 48.That the court will not disturb the finding of a jury, French v. Lowry, 19 Ill. 158; Bush v. Kindred, 20 Ill. 93; Carpenter v. Ambroson, 20 Ill. 170; Cross v. Carey, 25 Ill. 562; Morgan v. Reyerson, 20 Ill. 343; Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 ... ...
-
Corcoran v. City of Chicago
... ... 200 (Reprint p. 182). Again, this court said a verdict will not be disturbed unless the finding is clearly wrong (French v. Lowry, 19 Ill. 158;Bush v. Kindred, 20 Ill. 93;Carpenter v. Ambroson, 20 Ill. 170;Cross v. Carey, 25 Ill. 562 (Reprint p. 461); and where the evidence is conflicting the ... ...
-
Voge v. Penney
... ... setting it aside as a matter of law. Hilliard, New Trials, ... 456; French v. Roll, 24 Ga. 171; Smith v ... Tiffany, 36 Barb. 23; Bush v. Kindred, 20 Ill ... 93; Hammond v. Wadhams, 5 Mass. 352; Bennett v ... State, 8 Eng. (Ark.) 694; Leonard v. Green, 30 ... Minn. 496; Rheiner ... ...