TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Doyle v. Frank Douglas Machinery Co.

Robert Doyle v. Frank Douglas Machinery Company

Doyle v. Frank Douglas Mach. Co., 73 Ill. 273 (1874)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 15, 1874
Judges
Craig
Citations
73 Ill. 273
Syllabus
1. Practice—when to object to variance. Where a note is introduced in evidence, without objection, in the court below, it is too late to raise the objection, for the first time, in the Supreme Court, that there is a variance between the note and declaration. 3. Evidence—parol evidence, if not objected, to, sufficient to prove existence of corporation. Parol evidence that a party was a corporation, duly-organized, and that it had elected officers, and was doing business as a corporation, if introduced without objection, is sufficient to establish the existence of the corporation.
Summary
Writ oe Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. John Burns, Judge, presiding.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Craig

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Craig delivered the opinion of the Court:

This cause was tried by the court, by consent of parties, without the intervention of a jury, and judgment rendered against the defendant for the sum of $3027.62.

The first position assumed by the plaintiff in error is, the judgment is not supported by the evidence. We have carefully examined the testimony contained in the record, and the evidence, as it was introduced before the court, without objection, is ample to sustain the judgment rendered.

It is claimed there is a variance between one of the notes offered in evidence and the declaration. This is true; yet the note was introduced in evidence without objection, and it is too late to raise the objection, for the first time, in this court. Curry v. The People, 54 Ill. 263 .

It is, however, urged that the evidence of the existence of the corporation was not sufficient. It was shown by parol evidence, without objection, that the plaintiff was a corporation, duly organized May 14, 1872; that it had elected a president, secretary and treasurer, and that it was acting and doing business as a corporation. This evidence, in the absence of objection, may be regarded as sufficient.

This disposes of the questions raised by the plaintiff in error, and, as we perceive no substantial error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1877–1878: 11885–1886: 11909–1910: 118772026peak 1877 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Rozeboom124 N.W. 783 (Iowa 1910)
  2. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Coble113 Ill. 115 (1885)
  3. Putt v. Duncan2 Ill. App. 461 (1877)

Most recent

  1. State v. Rozeboom124 N.W. 783 (Iowa 1910)
  2. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Coble113 Ill. 115 (1885)
  3. Putt v. Duncan2 Ill. App. 461 (1877)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Curry v. People, 54 Ill. 263 (1870) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list