City of Chicago v. Wohlbach, 316 Ill. 203 (1925)

Feb. 17, 1925 · Illinois Supreme Court · No. 16357

316 Ill. 203

(No. 16357.

Judgment affirmed.)

The City of Chicago vs. Murray Wohlbach et al.—(George A. Carelin, Appellant, vs. Clara M. Smith, Appellee.)

Opinion filed February 17, 1925

Rehearing denied April 11, 1925.

1. Appeals and errors — what questions must be preserved by a bill of exceptions. To authorize the Supreme Court, on appeal in a condemnation proceeding, to review the court’s rulings on the evidence and the giving of instructions and to determine whether the verdict is contrary to the evidence such questions must be preserved by a bill of exceptions.

2. Same — bill of exceptions must be certified to be a part of the record. An alleged bill of exceptions cannot be considered by the Supreme Court where such bill is not certified by the clerk to be a part of the record.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. E. M. Mangan, Judge, presiding.

LoewEnstein & Rabinoee, (John E. Denissen, of counsel,) for appellant.

Daniel S. Wentworth, and David B. Maloney, for appellee.

Mri Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court:

The city of Chicago, in a certain proceeding to widen Western avenue, condemned the property here involved. Clara M. Smith, appellee, was the owner of the property and George A. Carelin was the tenant. A judgment of condemnation was entered and the compensation fixed at $15,000. Appellant filed an intervening petition in said proceedings, asking that the value of his lease be fixed and that he be awarded his proportion of the $15,000. The answer of appellee was filed and evidence taken. The jury found that the lease was of no value and a judgment was entered on this verdict. This appeal followed.

Appellant contends that improper evidence was admitted on behalf of appellee and that proper evidence on his behalf was rejected; that erroneous instructions were given on behalf of appellee; and that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Such questions must be preserved in a bill of exceptions, and this court cannot review the questions unless there is incorporated in the record filed a bill of exceptions containing all of the evidence and all of the instructions. There is what purports to be a bill of exceptions attached to the record filed in this case, but it is not certified by the clerk as a part of the record. For that reason we are precluded from consideration of the only questions urged by appellant.

The judgment is affirmed. T , , , J 0

T , J 0 Judgment affirmed.