Skip to main content
· 5/15/1885

Larminie v. Carley

Citations

  • 114 Ill. 196
  • 29 N.E. 382

Syllabus

<p>1. Appeal—reviewing facts—generally. Where a judgment in favor of a plaintiff in an action of assumpsit is affirmed by the Appellate Court, and there is evidence in the record tending to establish the plaintiff’s theory of the case, no assignment of error can be permitted which calls in question the finding of the facts by the trial and Appellate courts.</p> <p>2. On the trial of a case by the court without a jury, the court decided to admit in evidence any letters, telegrams or communications from the defendant to his agent, provided they were shown to the plaintiff or the contents in any way communicated to him by the agent; but as to what letters or telegrams were shown the plaintiff, or their contents made known to him, the evidence was conflicting: Held, that the finding of the trial court as to what communications had been shown or made known to the plaintiff, was review! able only by the Appellate’ Court, and that it would be presumed the trial court observed the rule of evidence it adopted.</p> <p>3. Same—reviewing facts—on question of excessive damages. Whether the amount of damages recovered by a plaintiff in an ordinary action ex contractu is excessive or not, is a question of fact, which this court can not consider on appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, affirming the judgment of the trial court.</p> <p>4. Evidence—relevancy—in the particular case—as to communications between parties prior to the transaction in controversy. In a suit against a commission man, to recover back margins put up from time to time on a purchase for future delivery, on the ground that the defendant closed out the deal' contrary to the contract, there being no complaint that plaintiff had failed to advance the requisite margins prior to the day the deal was closed out, it was held, that proof of telegrams from the defendant to his agent prior</p> <p>.to that day, and communicated to the plaintiff, was irrelevant, and that there ivas no error in refusing to admit th

Judges: Scott

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.