Merrimac Paper Co. v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 15 June 1889
• Citation: 129 Ill. 296,21 N.E. 787
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: MERRIMAC PAPER CO. v. ILLINOIS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK et al.

129 Ill. 296

21 N.E. 787

MERRIMAC PAPER CO.

v.ILLINOIS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 15, 1889.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Charles W. Needham

, for appellant.

Howard Henderson, (E. W. Russell and G. Frank White, of counsel,) for appellees.

SHOPE, C. J.

This was an action of replevin brought by appellant, in the superior court of Cook county, against appellees, to recover a quantity of book paper. By stipulation, a jury was waived, and the cause submitted to the court for trial. The court found the issue for the defendants, and rendered judgment accordingly, and for costs, and awarded a writ of retorno habendo in favor of the Illinois Trust & Savings Bank. On appeal to the appellate court for the First district, this judgment was affirmed, and the plaintiff below prosecutes this appeal from the judgment of affirmance. We are asked to review the finding of the appellate court, and of the superior court, in respect of the facts and law applicable thereto. No propositions of law were asked upon either side to be held by the trial court, and, in accordance with the uniform holding of this court, we must hold that no questions of law are raised by this record which we can review. If the plaintiff below desired to preserve the rulings of the court in its application of the law to the facts of the case, formal propositions of law should have been prepared and submitted, and the rulings of the court thereon, if adverse to the view of the plaintiff, could have been excepted to and such exception preserved. This was not done, and the principal question sought to be raised by counsel is not, therefore, before us. The finding of the appellate court of the facts adversely to the plaintiff is conclusive upon us. We are not permitted to review such finding. There is, however, one matter assigned as error which we may properly consider. The order of the superior court awarded a writ of return in favor of the ‘Illinois Trust & Savings Bank,’ whereas the defendant, from which the property had been taken upon the writ of replevin, was the ‘Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, trustee for the Union Warehouse Company;’ the character in which the bank defended having been omitted in the order awarding the return of the property replevied. It is sufficient to say that this is an error in no wise prejudicing appellant. It cannot affect its right who the property is returned to, and it cannot, therefore, be heard to...