{ "id": 5177196, "name": "Simon W. Brewer v. National Union Building Association", "name_abbreviation": "Brewer v. National Union Building Ass'n", "decision_date": "1896-04-27", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "161", "last_page": "164", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "64 Ill. App. 161" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "33 Ill. App. 317", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4992288 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/33/0317-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ill. App. 420", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 Ill. App. 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5097794 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/55/0290-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 Ill. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 826252 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/89/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ill. App. 428", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5151976 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/59/0428-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ill. App. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5057026 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/43/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. App. 438", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5021555 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/40/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. App. 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5024047 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/40/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 Ill. App. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5032458 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/41/0223-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 409, "char_count": 6676, "ocr_confidence": 0.548, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.9440785092205062e-07, "percentile": 0.7358911658556155 }, "sha256": "acb0a338761354c48b4214684c8780e083a6339bce207226a80cdb35c54cb327", "simhash": "1:e9235178784cdf69", "word_count": 1190 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Simon W. Brewer v. National Union Building Association." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee sued the appellant for rent. The case was here in 1891, and, with the title reversed, is reported in 41 Ill. App. 223.\nIn accordance with the opinion of this court as there reported, the court on the last trial instructed the jury that the word \u201c canceled,\u201d written by the officers of the appellee across the lease, \u201c ivas not of and by itself sufficient to release the \u201d appellant from paying rent. In this there was no error.\nFirst, because the law is so, if we had never decided it in the case as reported, and for reasons there stated; and second, because for the lower court and for this court on a second appeal, the decision on the first appeal is the law of the case, right or wrong. Field v. Brokaw, 40 Ill. App. 371; Central Warehouse Co. v. Sargeant, 40 Ill. App. 438; Whitesides v. Cook, 43 Ill. App. 183.\nThe brief of the appellant says \u201c that the several instructions (which cover three pages of the abstract) asked by the defendant should have been given, and that this proposition requires no citation of authorities,\u201d and thus drops the subject.\nWe are not required to examine the instructions upon such a brief.\nIt might as well have .omitted any mention of them. Cook v. Moulton, 59 Ill. App. 428.\nThe appellant filed a motion for a new trial, for a page (in the abstract) of reasons, and supported by two pages (in' the abstract) of affidavits, which was denied \u00a1November 20, 1895. The record states that denial thus:\n\" Afterward, to wit, on the 20th day of \u00a1November, A. D. 1895, and still of the said term, said motion for a new trial came on to be heard in its regular order, both parties being represented by counsel, said affidavits and said grounds of said motion for a new trial, however, were not, nor was either or any of them, read or called to the attention of the court, and said court denied the motion and entered judgment on said verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, as elsewhere appears, to which said decisions of the court, and to each thereof, the said defendant by his said counsel did then and there duly except.\u201d\nIn Penn v. Oglesby, 89 Ill. 110, it is said that the practice of overruling a motion for a new trial pro forma \u201c should not be indulged.\u201d There the pro forma part was the act of the court, and the party had the right to complain; here, it is the act of the party, and he has no right to complain.\nThe principle of Hintz v. Graupner, 138, Ill. 158, followed here in Hoffmann v. World\u2019s Col. Ex., 55 Ill. App. 290, and Geist v. Pollock, 58 Ill. App. 420, is applicable. De non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est lex.\nThe court was right in refusing a new trial for which the appellant offered no reason. Ten days later he moved the court again to grant a new trial for the same reasons, which motion was not decided until December 7, 1895, when the attorney of the appellant presented an additional affidavit in regard to the movements of himself and his watch on the sixth day of \u00a1November, 1895, which the court declined to hear, and overruled the motion.\nIn this was no error. The court was not to be so trifled with.\nAs the record was when originally filed here\u2014and we will treat it as yet so remaining\u2014it appears that the case was tried \u00a1November 6, 1895; that the noon recess was until 1:45 p. m.; that the appellant came, but his attorney did not; that the case of the appellant was not yet closed, and that the appellant took the witness stand, and the court said to the attorney of the appellee, \u201cYou may proceed to the jury,\u201d and the appellant said, \u201c Can\u2019t I be permitted to testify, your Honor % \u201d to which the court replied, \u201c\u00a1No, your attorney is not here, and we can\u2019t wait any longer,\u201d to which ruling the appellant excepted.\nUndoubtedly a party may conduct his own case without the aid of an attorney, but he is not relieved from rules of proceeding which his attorney would be required to observe.\nOne of those rules is, that to make the exclusion of offered testimony error, the offer must state what the testimony is expected to be. Gaffield v. Scott, 33 Ill. App. 317.\nHere was no such offer.\nWe need not, therefore, pass upon the motion to strike out the amendment to the record, nor comment upon the great inconvenience of permitting one person to occupy at the same time the place of witness and advocate; thereby\u2014 unless he questions himself, in which case the questions would be always subject to the objection that they \u201csuggest to the witness the answer desired \u201d (1 Greenl. Ev., Sec. 434)\u2014cut-ting off the opportunity of the adversary to keep out incompetent testimony. \u00a1Noerror was committed in denying to the appellant an opportunity to talk to the jury as a witness without restraint.\nLogically there is no objection to the proceedings below open to the appellant on this record.\nAny objections not included among the reasons assigned on the motion for a new trial were thereby waived ; and the motion for a new trial was itself waived by the neglect to present reasons to the court for granting it.\nThere is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary" } ], "attorneys": [ "Allan C. & F. W. Story, attorneys for appellant.", "Hamline, Scott & Lord, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Simon W. Brewer v. National Union Building Association.\n1. Release\u2014What is Not Sufficient.\u2014Writing the word \u201c canceled \u201d across a lease by the officers of a building association is not, of and by itself, sufficient to release the tenant from paying rent.\n. 2.. Former Decisions\u2014As to Cases in the Appellate Court. \u2014For the lower court and for the Appellate Court on a second appeal, the decision on the first appeal is the law of the case.\n3. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Insufficient Briefs.\u2014Upon a brief, that the several instructions asked- should have been given, and that such proposition requires no citation of authorities, the Appellate Court is not required to examine the instructions in question.\n4. Motions for New Trials\u2014 When Waived.\u2014A. motion for a new-trial is waived by the neglect of the party making it to present his reasons to the court for granting it.\n5. Trials\u2014Parties Acting as their Own Attorneys.\u2014A party may conduct his own case without the aid of an attorney, but in so doing he is not relieved from observing the rules of proceeding which attorneys are required to observe.\n6. Practice\u2014On Offers of Testimony.\u2014To make the exclusion of offered testimony error, the offer must state what the testimony is expected to prove.\nAssumpsit, for rent. Appeal from Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 27, 1896.\nAllan C. & F. W. Story, attorneys for appellant.\nHamline, Scott & Lord, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0161-01", "first_page_order": 159, "last_page_order": 162 }