Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

JOHN R. BEANLAND et al., d/b/a BEANLAND DRILLING COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FRED SWEITZER et al., Defendants-Appellants.

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-trial 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 Building, 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BEANLAND v. SWEITZER
(Jul 23, 1974)