Yaeger v. City of Henry (39 Ill. App. 21, 1890)

Upton, J.

In this case upon motion of counsel for appellee, the bill of exceptions filed herein was stricken from the record. Appellant now seeks to reverse the judgment below for alleged error manifest upon the face of the record.

Those errors are:

1st. That the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction of the person of the defendant.

2d. The court erred in trying the cause and entering judgment therein, without issue being joined.

3d. The court erred in trying the case without a jury.

4th. The court erred in trying the case at all.

The record recites that the appellant came by his attorney, and agreed to, and did, submit his case to the court below for trial without a jury. The record further shows that the case was in fact tried by the court without a jury. It recites that the parties to the suit “came by their respective counsel, and the court having heard the evidence and arguments of counsel, found the defendant guilty,” etc. The Supreme Court held in Baldwin v. Murphy, 82 Ill. 485, when a party appears and submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court, it is a matter of no consequence whether the summons was void or not, or even whether there was in fact any process at all It is a rule of general application that in the absence of a bill of exception showing all the evidence in the case, it will be presumed in support of the judgment that there was. sufficient evidence be tore this court to warrant it. Wilson v. McDowell, 65 Ill. 522; Treischel v. McGill, 28 Ill. App. 78. It was held, in the absence of a bill of exceptions preserving the evidence, the Supreme (or Appellate) Court will presume that •every fact necessary to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the court