Fishback v. Guelich

• Decision Date: 31 August 1881
• Citation: 9 Ill.App. 405,9 Bradw. 405
• Parties: BENEDICT FISHBACKv.EMIL GUELICH ET AL.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

9 Ill.App. 405

9 Bradw. 405

BENEDICT FISHBACK

v.EMIL GUELICH ET AL.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

August Term, 1881.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the City Court of Alton; the Hon. HENRY S. BAKER, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed October 6, 1881.

Mr. JOHN J. BRENHOLT, for appellant; that possession of a promissory note is prima facie evidence of ownership, cited Jewett & Root v. Cook, 81 Ill. 260; Palmer v. Gardiner, 77 Ill. 143; Walker v. Douglass, 70 Ill. 445; Curtis v. Martin, 20 Ill. 557.

Where payment is alleged by defendant and denied by plaintiff, the production of the note in his possession by plaintiff, uncancelled, corroborates his testimony to the extent that will give him a right to recover. Steambaugh v. Hallan, 48 Ill. 305; Wade v. Atkins, 58 Ill. 64.

Messrs. WISE & DAVIS, for appellees; that the verdict not being manifestly against the weight of evidence, it will not be set aside, cited Aurora F. Ins. Co. v. Eddy, 55 Ill. 213; City of Peru v. French, 55 Ill. 317; Lawrence v. Hagerman, 56 Ill. 58; Kuhnen v. Blitz, 56 Ill. 171; T. P. & W. R. R. Co. v. Firth, 60 Ill. 451; Walker v. Martin, 59 Ill. 348; Young v. Schorling, 60 Ill. 148; Keller v. Rossbach, 61 Ill. 342.

PER CURIAM.

We cannot say that injustice was done by the verdict, nor that there is such vice in the third instruction as to warrant a reversal for that cause alone.

No objection is taken in the brief or argument to the other instructions, and we do not feel called upon to search for defects that are not suggested. The judgment will therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.