Opinion by
Judge below, C. Blanchaed.
Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Glinny, 19 Ill. App. 639 (1886)
May 21, 1886
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
No. 1368
19 Ill. App. 639
No. 1368.
Chicago & Alton Railroad Company v. Glinny.
This was an action brought by appellee against appellant to *640recover damages for overflowing Ills land with water and destroying his crops. Trial, and verdict for appellee for $999.99 — appellee remitting $99.99. Motion for new trial; motion overruled and judgment, from which this appeal is taken. Two things are required to reverse a judgment. First, that manifest error has intervened in the proceedings of the court below; and second, that such error has operated prejudicially to the party complaining of it. When either of these requisites is wanting the judgment may be aftirmed: Forney v. Thompson, 14 Bradwell, 393. “When the testimony is conflicting, though the correctness of the finding is doubtful, the verdict will be sustained.” Tucker v. Watte, 64 Ill. 416 ; Stampofski v. Hooper, 86 Ill. 321. Applying these rules to this case, whether there was an injury, the extent thereof, and the cause, were all questions of fact. The court is of opinion the evidence sufficiently sustains the verdict, There was some conflict in the evidence, but this conflict was settled by the jury in favor of appellee. It is further insisted in the brief for appellant, that the damages are excessive. When excessive damages are not assigned as a ground for a new trial in the court below, nor as error in this court, the appellant is not in condition to have that question reviewed : Emory v. Addis, 71 Ill. 273; Jones v. Jones, 71 Ill. 562.
Opinion filed May 21, 1886.
The judgment is affirmed.
Attorneys, for appellant, Mr. Geo. S. House; for appellee, Messrs. Wing & Goodspeed and Mr. John Reynolds.