#### Joseph W. Chladek v. Andrew J. Brown.

1. Statutory Bonds—Construction of.—A statutory bond has the effect which, in reason, must have been intended by the statute.

Debt, on an appeal bond. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Henry W. Freeman, Judge, presiding. Submitted at the March term, 1895, of this court.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 22, 1895.

George G. Bellows, attorney for appellant.

Eastman & Schumacher, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Justice Gary

delivered the opinion oe the Court.

This is an action upon an appeal bond given in the County *380Court of Cook County upon an appeal from a judgment of that court to this, in an action of forcible detainer, and conditioned as the statute requires.

This case was tried without a jury, and on the trial it appeared that this court affirmed the judgment of the County Court.

The Superior Court assessed the damages at $795. The evidence warranted the finding, and we are too much pressed with real questions, to review the argument of the appellant on his thirteen assignments of error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Me. Justice Gary

on petition fob rehearing.

We are urged to reconsider the question of the sufficiency of the evidence as to the amount of damages. This we decline to do. We do not regard it to be necessary in deciding that a court or jury made no mistake upon evidence, to recite the evidence.

It is further urged that we did not consider the construction of the bond conditioned inter alia to pay “ all damages, and loss which plaintiff may sustain by reason of the withholding of the premises, and by reason of any injury done thereto,” As we read the argument the appellant holds that, unless the damages and loss sued for are the result, both of withholding and of injury done, there can be no recovery.

A statutory bond has the effect which, in reason, must have been intended. Hibbard v. McKinley, 28 Ill. 240.

Petition denied.