網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

V.

v.

Rockwell, The People v. 3 | Swain et al. v. Cawood 505
Rogers, Morrison et al. v. 317
Ross, Archer v.
303 Taylor, Creach v.

277 Russel et al. v. Martin 492 Teal v. Russell et al.

319 Russell et al. v. Hamilton 56 Thornton v. Heirs of Henry 218 Russell et al., Teal v. 319 Thornton, Harmon et al. v. 351

Thomas, McConnel v. 313 Sabine, Beaubien v.

457 Thompson et al., Kyle v. 432 Salisbury et al. v. Gillett et al. 290 Todd et al., Ellett v.

214 Saunders v. O'Briant 369 Toncray, Mastin v.

216 Savage et al., Berry v. 261 | Towell et al. v. Gatewood 22 Savage et al. v. Berry 545 | Townsend et al. v. Griggs

365 Scammon v. Cline

456 Tyler v. Young et al. 444 Scarborough, Brewster et al. 280 Vail, Lea v.

473 Scott, Harlan v.

65 Van Horn v. Jones et al. 1 Semple v. Miles

315 Van Winkle et al. v. Beck 488 Shepard v. Ogden

257 Vance et al. v. Funk et al. 263 Sherman, Hunter v. 539 Vandyke v. Daley

564 Shields, Wheeler v.

348 Vibbard et al., Holbrook et al. Shirtliff v. The People 7

465 Shrewsbury, Wincher v.

283 Vickers, Webster et al. v. 295 Singleton, Harrison v.

21 Smith et al., Merriweather et Wade et al., Dunseth v. 285 30 Walker v. Walker

291 Smith et al., Bryan et al. v. 47 Waldo et al. v. Williams 470 Smith, Brookbank v. 78 Wann v. McGoon

74 Smith v. Finch 321 Warren v. McHatton

32 Spiller, Greenwood v. 502 Washtenaw, Bank of, v. MontSpragins v. Houghton 211 gomery

422 Spragins v. Houghton 377 Weatherford v. Wilson Sprague, Jones v.

55 Webster et al., Calhoun v. 221 State Bank of Illinois, Dorma Webster et al. v. Vickers 295 dy v.

236
Wheeler v.
Shields

348 State Bank of Illinois, Gillham Whitney, Lampsett v. 441 245, 248 White et al. v. Martin

69 State v. Evans 208 Wilson, State v.

al. v.

253

v.

2.25 Wilson 225 Wincher v. Shrewsbury

283 Stewart et al., Mitcheltree v. 17 Wood, Bacon v.

265 Stone v. The People 326 Wright, Nye v.

222 Stone et al. v. Manning

530 Stout v. McAdams

67 Yeatman et al., Lawrence v. 15 Swailes, McConnell v. 571 Young et al., Tyler v.

State v.

ERRATUM

In the case of Manning et al. o. Pierce, pp. 4, 5, 6, for returno habendo, read returno habendo.

DECISIONS

OF THE

SUPREME E COURT

OF THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

DELIVERED

DECEMBER TERM, 1839, AT SPRINGFIELD.

CONTINUED FROM VOL. I.

CORNELIUS C. Van Horn, plaintiff in error, v. WILLIAM

Jones, HENRY B. CLARK, and BYRAM KING, defendants in error.

Error to the Municipal Court of the City of Chicago.

The same averments are necessary to give the Municipal Court of the city of

Chicago jurisdiction, when it sends its process to a foreign county, that would

be requisite in a like case, in a Circuit Court. An averment of the residence of the plaintiff, and that the cause of action accrued,

or that the contract was specifically made payable, in the county where suit is instituted, is necessary where process is sent to a foreign county. The act abolishing the Municipal Court of the city of Chicago, has no application

to a case where process is sent to another county.

J. Y. SCAMMON, I. N. ARNOLD, and M. D. Ogden, for the plaintiff in error.

JUSTIN BUTTERFIELD, for the defendants in error.
LOCKWOOD, Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court :

This was an action of assumpsit commenced by Jones, King, and Clark against Van Horn, in the Municipal Court of the city of Chicago. The summons was directed to the sheriff of Will county, and by him served on the defendant below. The declaration contains a count for goods sold and delivered, and the common money counts, but does not contain any averment that the plaintiffs were residents of the county of Cook, or that the contract was specifically made payable in that county. VOL. II.

1

Lowry et al. o. Bryant.

Judgment was rendered by default against the defendant, the plaintiff in error in this Court.

Without intending to decide whether the Municipal Court of the city of Chicago could send its process into any other county than that of Cook, it is clear that when it does, the same averments must be made to give the Municipal Court jurisdiction, that are necessary to give a Circuit Court jurisdiction in like cases.

This Court has repeatedly decided that the Circuit Court of any county cannot send its process to another county, unless the declaration contains an averment that the cause of action accrued in the county where the plaintiff resides, and in which the suit is brought, or that the contract upon which the suit is instituted, is specifically made payable in the county in which the action is commenced.

It was, however, suggested by the counsel for the defendants in error, that the act repealing a part of the “ Act to incorporate the City of Chicago,(i) which provides “ That it shall be no ground of error in or to any judgment heretofore rendered in the said Municipal Court, that it does not appear by the record or proceedings that the defendant resided in the said county of Cook," has cured the error.

This provision of the act has no manner of application to the objection raised to the declaration in this cause. The error relied on is, that the Municipal Court had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the declaration containing none of the averments above mentioned, and the defendant being a resident of another county. The judgment of the Court below is therefore reversed with costs.

Judgment reversed.

Lowry et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Bryant, defendant

in error.

Error to Peoria.

Probable cause for reversing a judgment, is good ground for granting a supersedeas.

Per Curiam : A supersedeas will be granted, when it appears upon inspection of the record, that there is probable cause for reversing the judgment of the Court below. The supersedeas is allowed for the purpose of enabling the parties to litigate the question without prejudice to their rights, when there is probable grounds for suspending the enforcement of the execution.

(1) Acts of Incorporation of 1838 - 39.

The People o. Rockwell.

3 3 64a 107

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex relatione

JESSE B. THOMAS, a Commissioner of the Board of Public Works, v. DENNIS ROCKWELL, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Morgan County.

Motion for a Mandamus.
A clerk is not bound to deliver an exemplification of the records of the Court of

which he is clerk, until his fees for making the exemplification are paid.
In civil causes, clerks of courts are entitled to the same fees when they render

services for the State, that they would be if the services were performed for private persons.

The following stipulation was filed by the attorneys of the respective parties :

“Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.
" State of Illinois v. Burton.
« Same v. Weatherbee.
"Same v. Blodgett.
" Same v. Million.

" It is hereby agreed between S. A. Douglass, who appears on behalf of the State, and William Brown, on the part of the said clerk, that the following is a true statement of the facts upon which this motion is predicated; and the opinion of the Court is solicited upon the law thereon.

“ These cases were instituted to assess damages and obtain the right of way, under the law establishing the Internal Improvement System. The Commissioner for the first judicial circuit, Jesse B. Thomas, Esq., prayed and obtained an appeal to this Court, and directed the clerk of the Morgan Circuit Court, where the cases were pending, to make out the records of the proceedings of the Court below, which the said clerk has accordingly done, and placed the same in the hands of J. J. Hardin, Esq., as his agent, to deliver the said records to the agent of the State, upon the

payment to the agent of said clerk, his fees thereon. " The agent of the State denies that according to the laws of this State, the State is bound to pay costs, and insists that the said clerk is bound to furnish the said records without the payment of costs or fees; and, on the contrary, the clerk insists that he is entitled to his fees for making out a copy of the records, before the delivery of said records.

“ Upon this state of facts, the parties aforesaid submit the question to the Court, whether the said clerk is or is not bound to deliver said records without previous payment of fees thereon.

“Upon this statement of facts, the State of Illinois asks a mandamus against Dennis Rockwell, the clerk of the Circuit Court of Morgan county, commanding him to deliver over to the agent

Manning et al. o. Pierce.

[ocr errors]

or attorney for the State, the copies of the records in the aforesaid causes.

S. A. DOUGLASS,

WM. BROWN.Per Curiam : The motion is denied. The clerks of the Circuit Courts are not bound to perform services for the State, in civil causes, without compensation. They are entitled to the same fees that they would be entitled to receive from private persons. A clerk is not bound to deliver an exemplification of the records of the Court of which he is clerk, until his fees are paid for making the exemplification.

Motion denied.

4 7.2 378

WILLIAM MANNING and JOHN MANNING, appellants, v.

SAMUEL C. PIERCE, appellee.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of Alton.
Debt is a proper form of action on a replevin bond.
Where the condition of a replevin bond was, that if the plaintiff should prosecute

his suit with effect, and save the officer harmless, or make return of the prop.
erty, if the same should be awarded to the defendant, &c., and the declaration
averred that such proceedings were had in the suit, that it was adjudged that
the plaintiff should take nothing by his writ; and thereupon a writ of returno
habendo was awarded and delivered to the officer; and that the plaintiff " did
not prosecute his suit with effect, or make return of the property” replevied :
Held, that the breach alleged in the declaration was sufficient.

This was an action of debt brought in the Municipal Court of the city of Alton, by Samuel C. Pierce, late coroner of Madison county, against the appellants, upon a replevin bond executed by them to said Pierce, as coroner of said county.

The declaration contained two counts ; the first merely setting out a bond made by the defendants to the plaintiff, as coroner, for the payment of $ 500. The second set forth the making of the bond with the following condition.

“ That, whereas the above bounden William Manning had sued out of the Municipal Court of the city of Alton, county and State aforesaid, a writ of replevin against Nathaniel Buckmaster, for detaining the following property, to wit ; one sofa, one sideboard, three looking glasses, one high post bedstead, one wardrobe, one pair card tables, one cane-bottom rocking chair, six common canebottom chairs, one secretary, two carpets, and one dining table, of the value of two hundred and fifty dollars. Now, if the said William Manning should prosecute said suit with effect, against said Nathaniel Buckmaster, for the above described property, and should hold the said coroner harmless, or make return of the property, if the same should be awarded to the said defendant, and should

pay such costs as might accrue in said suit, in case of a

« 上一頁繼續 »