Illinois Central Railroad v. Garish, 39 Ill. 370 (1866)

Jan. 1866 · Illinois Supreme Court

39 Ill. 370

The Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Harlan P. Garish.

1. Bill of exceptions—its requisites, When the bill of exceptions fails to state that it contains all of the evidence, this court will not examine the evidence to ascertain whether it sustains the verdict, but will presume that there was other and sufficient evidence to warrant it.

S. Exceptions—when necessary. Unless exceptions are taken to instructions given to a jury, no question can arise in regard to the propriety of giving them.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Marion county; the Hon. Silas L. Bryan, Judge, presiding.

This was an action on the case commenced in the court below by Harlan P. Garish against the Illinois Central Railroad company. A trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered thereon. It is sought, on the part of the company, to reverse the judgment, on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and that improper instructions were given to the jury.

The bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence, nor was there any exception taken to the instruction.

Messrs. Green & Stoker, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. H. K. S. O’Melveny, for the defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice Walker

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The bill of exceptions in this case fails to state that it contains all of the evidence. It has been so repeatedly and uniformly held by this court that when it does not appear that all of the evidence is embodied in a bill of exceptions, we will not examine the evidence to ascertain whether it sustains the verdict, that we deem it unnecessary to quote authorities, or to discuss the reason of the rule. The bill of exceptions failing to state that it embodies all of the evidence in the case, we will presume that there was other and sufficient evidence to fully sustain the verdict. We therefore decline the discussion of the question of negligence sought to be raised on this record.

There seems to have been no exceptions taken to the instructions given in the case, consequently no question can arise on them. The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.