Legal Opinion

Kesner v. Faroll

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided December 29, 1932No. Gen. No. 36,066PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Matchett

In an action in trover for the conversion of certain stocks defendants pleaded the general issue. On trial by jury there Avas a verdict for plaintiff, on Avhich after motions for a new trial and in arrest and for judgment non obstante veredicto had been overruled, judgment was entered for plaintiff in the sum of $24,535.13. From that judgment defendants have perfected this appeal.

At the close of plaintiff’s eAddence and again at the close of all the evidence, defendants made a motion for a directed verdict in their favor, which was denied, and the principal (and Ave think the controlling)…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Cochran & Sayre v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Richardson v. ShawSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  3. Markham v. . JaudonNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
  4. London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. HornIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Schonwald v. RagainsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. M. Shapiro & Son Construction Co. v. BattagliaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
  2. Hines v. Ward Baking Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1946
  3. City Nat. Bank of Murphysboro v. ReimanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1992
  4. Dee v. Bank of Oakbrook TerraceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API