Martin v. Ehrenfels

CourtIllinois Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCATON
Citation14 Peck 187,1860 WL 6375,24 Ill. 187
Decision Date30 April 1860
PartiesAUGUSTUS MARTIN et al., Plaintiffs in Error,v.FREDERICK N. EHRENFELS, Defendant in Error.

24 Ill. 187
1860 WL 6375 (Ill.)
14 Peck (IL) 187

AUGUSTUS MARTIN et al., Plaintiffs in Error,
v.
FREDERICK N. EHRENFELS, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1860.


ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CHICAGO.

The fact that evidence was given to the jury, tending to show that parties sued here had been copartners in Europe, is not so irrelevant as to authorize the setting aside of a verdict.

In order to have this court decide, whether there was a variance between a note declared upon, and the one offered in evidence, the latter should be set out in the bill of exceptions.

If the evidence as to a fact is conflicting, the verdict will be sustained.

The affidavit of a juror, is not to be received, to impeach the conduct of the panel.

Cumulative evidence, or newly discovered evidence, touching upon a fact, about which evidence had already been received, unless it is conclusive as to such fact, or the fact that a witness can be impeached, is not cause for granting a new trial.

[24 Ill. 188]

THIS was a suit commenced by an affidavit, for an attachment for $1,773.68, on two promissory notes made by plaintiffs in error, under the firm of A. Martin & Co., one dated 16th September, 1858, payable to defendant in error, for $1,248, two months after date, with interest; the other, made by plaintiffs in error, under the same style, dated 29th September, 1858, payable to Greenbaum Brothers, or order, twelve days after date, for $500, with interest at ten per cent.; last note duly indorsed by payees to the defendant in error.

That Martin had departed from the State of Illinois, and that Rudolph A. and William Slomer, were about to depart from said State, each of them having the intent to remove their effects from said State, to the injury of their creditors as aforesaid.

The declaration was on the two notes set out in the affidavit for attachment, and the common counts.

Ad damnum, $3,000.

General issue by Rudolph A. Slomer, and similiter.

General issue by William Slomer, and similiter.

Affidavit of Rudolph A. Slomer, verifying his plea.

Affidavit of William Slomer, verifying his plea.

Default of Martin was entered.

A jury was impanneled to try issue, and there was a verdict on issues joined, and damages assessed on default, 8th October, 1859, for $1,876.31.

Motion on part of Rudolph A. Slomer and William Slomer, for a new trial.

Motion for a new trial overruled by the court, and final judgment on verdict, and exception by defendants Slomers.

Appeal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 practice notes
  • The Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co. v. Bliss
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 30, 1880
    ...Brickner v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. 2 Lans. 506. As to the objection to the verdict: City of Pekin v. Winkel, 77 Ill. 56; Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187; Reins v. The People, 30 Ill. 256. PLEASANTS, J. This was an action by appellee, under the statute, for damages for the death of her intestat......
  • J. E. Hayner & Co. v. Sherrer
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 31, 1878
    ...73 Ill. 525; Millikin v. Taylor, 53 Ill. 509; Chicago v. Garrison, 52 Ill. 516; Pullian v. Ogle, 27 Ill. 189; Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187; Morgan v. Ryerson, 20 Ill. 343; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Hutchins, 34 Ill. 108; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Crandall, 41 Ill. 234; Town of Vinegar Hill ......
  • People v. Holmes, No. 48944
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • January 20, 1978
    ...may be received to prove improper conduct on the part of the jury. In the later cases which hold to the contrary (see Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187, 189, and Reins v. People, 30 Ill. 256, 274) no mention is made of Sawyer, and the statements that the affidavits of [69 Ill.2d 514] the jur......
  • Bishop v. Bell
    • United States
    • Illinois Appellate Court
    • May 31, 1878
    ...be disturbed unless manifestly against the evidence, cited Lowry v. Orr, 1 Gilm. 70; Morgan v. Ryerson, 20 Ill. 343; Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187; Pullian v. Ogle, 27 Ill. 189; Wallace v. Wren, 32 Ill. 146; Dietrich v. Rumsey, 45 Ill. 209; Underhill v. Fake, 46 Ill. 50; Bunker v. Green,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
35 cases
  • The Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co. v. Bliss
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 30, 1880
    ...Brickner v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. 2 Lans. 506. As to the objection to the verdict: City of Pekin v. Winkel, 77 Ill. 56; Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187; Reins v. The People, 30 Ill. 256. PLEASANTS, J. This was an action by appellee, under the statute, for damages for the death of her intestat......
  • J. E. Hayner & Co. v. Sherrer
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 31, 1878
    ...73 Ill. 525; Millikin v. Taylor, 53 Ill. 509; Chicago v. Garrison, 52 Ill. 516; Pullian v. Ogle, 27 Ill. 189; Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187; Morgan v. Ryerson, 20 Ill. 343; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Hutchins, 34 Ill. 108; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Crandall, 41 Ill. 234; Town of Vinegar Hill ......
  • People v. Holmes, No. 48944
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • January 20, 1978
    ...may be received to prove improper conduct on the part of the jury. In the later cases which hold to the contrary (see Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187, 189, and Reins v. People, 30 Ill. 256, 274) no mention is made of Sawyer, and the statements that the affidavits of [69 Ill.2d 514] the jur......
  • Bishop v. Bell
    • United States
    • Illinois Appellate Court
    • May 31, 1878
    ...be disturbed unless manifestly against the evidence, cited Lowry v. Orr, 1 Gilm. 70; Morgan v. Ryerson, 20 Ill. 343; Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187; Pullian v. Ogle, 27 Ill. 189; Wallace v. Wren, 32 Ill. 146; Dietrich v. Rumsey, 45 Ill. 209; Underhill v. Fake, 46 Ill. 50; Bunker v. Green,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT