Hobbs v. Daniel Ferguson's Estate.
| Decision Date | 26 September 1881 |
| Citation | 100 Ill. 232,1881 WL 10608 |
| Parties | JAMES B. HOBBSv.DANIEL FERGUSON'S ESTATE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the Second District;--heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Grundy county.
Messrs. HOYNE, HORTON & HOYNE, and Messrs. HILL & DIBELL, for the appellant.
Messrs. GARNSEY & KNOX, for the appellee.
Hobbs filed a claim in the county court against the estate of Ferguson. The claim was disallowed by that court. Hobbs appealed to the circuit court. In that court the cause was tried by the court, a jury being waived, and the finding and judgment were against the claimant, to which he excepted and filed a bill of exceptions, setting out all of the evidence. No rulings of that court in the progress of the trial are complained of as erroneous. The claimant appealed to the Appellate Court, and by that court the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed, and from that judgment Hobbs appeals to this court.
The proofs tend to show that Hobbs acted as the agent and commission merchant in behalf of Ferguson, in buying and selling grain for him in the Chicago market, in which losses occurred to Ferguson, which were paid by Hobbs, and the claim is for moneys so advanced and paid out. Appellant's counsel, assuming that the Appellate Court affirmed this judgment upon the ground that the transactions were unlawful, seek to present that question here for determination. The record fails to show that the result was governed or affected by the legal question presented. The bill of exceptions taken in the circuit court fails to show that that question was raised in the circuit court.
Our statute (sec. 42, chap. 110, Rev. Stat. 1874,) provides that in trials of this kind by the circuit court, without a jury, either party may, upon the trial, “submit to the court written propositions, to be held as law in the decision of the case,” which the court is by law required to pass upon, and mark “held” or “refused,” or to modify, as shall be the views of the court upon the questions presented; and either party may except to such rulings.
Where a party at such a trial supposes a question of law is involved in the finding, he may thus separate the same from the questions of fact, as he might do by asking instructions if the issue were submitted to a jury, and save the supposed question of law for consideration in the Appellate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zeigler v. Illinoistrust & Sav. Bank
...procedure, upon an appeal to this court it is our duty to examine and determine questions of fact as well as of law. Hobbs v. Ferguson's Estate, 100 Ill. 232;Belleville Savings Bank v. Bornman, 124 Ill. 200, 16 N. E. 210;Cheney v. Roodhouse, 135 Ill. 257, 25 N. E. 1019;Bliss v. Seaman, 165 ......
-
La Salle Cnty. v. Milligan
...court, being conclusive of the facts, must be affirmed in this court as a matter of course. Tibballs v. Libby, 97 Ill. 552;Hobbs v. Ferguson's Estate, 100 Ill. 232;Stock Yards v. Ferry Co., 102 Ill. 514;Farwell v. Shove, 105 Ill. 61;Hardy v. Rapp, 112 Ill. 359;Association v. Hall, 118 Ill. ......
-
American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Chicago Nat. Bank
... ... Tibballs v. Libby, 97 Ill. 552;Hobbs v. Ferguson's Estate, 100 Ill. 232;Bridge Co. v. Commissioners, 101 Ill ... ...
-
Michigan Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hall
... ... Hobbs v. Ferguson's Estate, 100 Ill. 232;Wrought Iron Bridge Co. v ... ...