Lonergan v. Courtney
| Decision Date | 30 September 1874 |
| Citation | 1874 WL 9298,75 Ill. 580 |
| Parties | THOMAS LONERGANv.THOMAS E. COURTNEY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. HENRY BOOTH, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Thomas E. Courtney against Thomas Lonergan. The opinion states sufficiently the material facts involved.
Mr. WM. B. SNOWHOOK, and Mr. JOHN BORDEN, for the appellant.
Mr. MELVILLE W. FULLER, for the appellee.
This was assumpsit, in the Cook circuit court, on the common counts. The defense was, the general issue, and a set-off. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and a motion for a new trial having been overruled, there was judgment thereon, to reverse which the defendant appeals.
It appears that in October, 1871, a few days after the fire, appellee agreed to erect two brick buildings for appellant, as appellee claimed, for ten per cent on the cost. The account was kept by appellee and one Clinton in a pass-book, on which appellants made payments from time to time.
According to the account, as kept by appellee, the balance claimed by him was more than seventeen hundred dollars. There was much testimony before the jury, tending to show a contract between these parties for ten per cent on the cost of the buildings, and not on the labor, as defendant contended, and from the examination we have given the testimony, we are inclined to think the jury would have been justified in finding a much larger verdict. It cannot be expected this court will scrutinize every item of a litigated account. It is sufficient for us to be satisfied there is evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict -- that the jury have not misapprehended its force. All the contested facts in this case have undergone the proper ordeal, and the only objection we have to the finding is, that it is less than appellee was entitled to recover.
It is complained the jury were not properly instructed. The following instruction asked by the defendant was refused:
“The jury are instructed, that, in considering and weighing the testimony of the plaintiff, Courtney, they are entitled to consider, from the evidence, whether the bill, as rendered by him, and which is in evidence in this case, was just and true or not, and if any overcharges or errors are contained therein, whether the same were intentionally and knowingly made or adopted by him; and the jury are further entitled, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flansburg v. Basin
...233. It is not proper to repeat in an instruction a principle already given in an instruction: Chicago v. Hesing, 83 Ill. 204; Lonergan v. Courtney, 75 Ill. 580. Appellant's instruction was properly refused, as it gives undue prominence to parts of the testimony: Hewitt v. Johnson, 72 Ill. ......
-
The City of Jacksonville v. Akers
... ... W. & W. R'y Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217; Chapman v. Burt, 77 Ill. 337; Summons v. Stark, 76 Ill. 208; Kightlinger v. Egan, 75 Ill. 141; Lonergan v. Courtney, 75 Ill. 580; Jasper v. Dieden, 73 Ill. 612; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Higgins, 72 Ill. 517; Reynolds v. Palmer, 70 Ill. 288; Simmons v ... ...
-
Moran v. Hassett
... ... & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Ryan, 70 Ill. 211; Papineau v. Belgarde, 81 Ill. 61; McClellan v. Mitchell, 82 Ill. 35; Lonergan v. Courtney, 75 Ill. 580; Varner v. Varner, 69 Ill. 445; Chitterden v. Evans, 48 Ill. 52.[5 Ill.App. 99] PER CURIAM.This is an appeal from a judgment ... ...
-
Waldron v. the Brazil
...another given at the instance of the party asking the one refused: Chicago v. Brophy, 79 Ill. 277; Ames v. Snider, 69 Ill. 376; Lonegan v. Courtney, 75 Ill. 580; Chicago v. Hesing, 83 Ill. 204; Dickey v. Linscott, 20 Me. 453. This is not one entire contract and service each month for which ......