Martewicz v. John Mohr & Sons, 236 Ill. 143 (1908)

Oct. 26, 1908 · Illinois Supreme Court
236 Ill. 143
Anton Martewicz, Plaintiff in Error, vs. John Mohr & Sons, Defendant in Error

Anton Martewicz, Plaintiff in Error, vs. John Mohr & Sons, Defendant in Error.

Opinion filed October 26, 1908.

Appeals and Errors—ñnding by Appellate Court that defendant was not negligent is conclusive. A finding by the Appellate Court, in its judgment reversing a judgment for the’plaintiff in a personal injury case without awarding a new trial, that the defendant was not guilty of the negligence charged in the declaration, is conclusive against the plaintiff’s right of recovery and is not open to question in the Supreme Court.

Writ oe Error to the Appellate Court for the Eirst District;—heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Ben M. Smith, Judge, presiding.

Cyrus J. Wood, and Stephen Janowicz, for plaintiff in error.

Caehoun, Dyeord & Sheean, (Robert J. Seater, and Edward W. Raweins, of counsel,) for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Hand

delivered the opinion of the court:

This was an action on the case commenced by the plaintiff, against the defendant, in the superior court of Cook county, to recover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $10,000, upon which verdict, after overruling .a motion for a new trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant prosecuted an appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District, which court made a finding of fact that the defendant was not guilty of the negligence charged in the declaration and reversed the judgment of the trial court without remanding *144the cause, and plaintiff has sued out a writ of error from this court to review the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The only question upon this record open for review in this court is, did the Appellate Court correctly apply the law to the facts as found by that court? Manifestly, if the defendant was not guilty of the negligence charged in the declaration there could be no recovery by plaintiff against the defendant. Chaplin v. Illinois Terminal Railroad Co. 227 Ill. 166.

The judgment of the Appellate Court will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.