Beanland v. Sweitzer
John R. Beanland, d/b/a Beanland Drilling Company v. Fred Sweitzer
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM: Judgment was entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $2537. Defendants have appealed seeking reversal and remandment for a new trial.
Plaintiffs-appellees have moved to affirm the judgment, on the grounds that the defendants did not file a post-Mai motion, and therefore failed to preserve a basis for review by this court.
We believe plaintiffs-appellees’ interpretation of section 68.1 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110, par. 68.1) is correct. Roberson v. Leak, 72 Ill.App.2d 11 , 218 N.E.2d 819 ; Farnsworth v. Shops Budding, 77 Ill.App.2d 44 , 222 N.E.2d 132 .
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. JUSTICE CREBS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.