Brazzle and Hawkins v. Usher
| Usher sued Brazzle and Hawkins for trespass vi et armis in the Gallatin County Circuit Court and obtained a judgment against them. Brazzle and Hawkins appealed, arguing that no plea was filed, thus rendering the trial improper. However, as both parties were present at the trial and raised no objections, the Illinois Supreme Court deemed their appearance as curing any defects. Therefore, the original judgment was affirmed. |
Taylor v. Sprinkle
| The Supreme Court upheld the demurrer on the fifth plea, arguing that it lacked sufficient detail in avoiding the obligation, rendering it insufficient. This plea relied on a statute introducing a new remedy, yet failed to meet the standards of common law. Consequently, the circuit court's decision was affirmed. |
Tarlton v. Miller
| Miller sued Tarlton to recover a promissory note. The first count alleged diligent search for the note's maker, Squire Brown, in Gallatin County, but he couldn't be found. The court, rejecting a motion to dismiss the defective count, ruled in favor of Miller, and Tarlton appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment by questioning the validity of the first count and arguing that due diligence requires a lawsuit. Justice John Reynolds dissented, asserting Brown's absence was sufficient diligence. |
Bell and Bell v. Aydelott
Aydelott sued Bell and Bell for assault and battery. The court ruled for Aydelott. The Bells appealed because the court failed to issue a writ of inquiry to the sheriff to assess damages. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the decision because the sheriff was in the court room.
Poole v. Vanlandingham
Vanlandingham sued Poole in an action of debt. Poole responded with seven pleas. The circuit court sustained a demurrer on five pleas, including those asserting lack of consideration and failure of consideration. The sixth plea, asserting partial payment, was upheld. The court ruled for Vanlandingham and Poole appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment due to errors in sustaining the demurrer on valid pleas and remanded the case. However, it affirmed the judgment on the pleas challenging the consideration.
Street v. Gallatin County
Street sued the Gallatin County Court Commissioners to restore him to the clerk's office. The circuit court ruled for Gallatin County, and Street appealed. The Illinois Supreme Court issued the mandamus to restore Street to his office because the Commissioners failed to record the cause of removal.
White v. Thompson
| Thompson sued White in an action of trespass vi et armis. White pleaded the pendency of a prior suit for the same cause of action, but the court proceeded to default judgment without addressing the plea. White appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's judgment. The Court deemed the default judgment without addressing the plea was a clear error. The case was remanded for new proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. |
Slocumb v. Kuykendall
| The case involved a slander accusation implying theft against Slocumb. Slocumb alleged three counts of slander, but Lewis Kuykendall pleaded not guilty. After the trial, the court instructed the jury to find in favor of Lewis Kuykendall, stating the evidence did not support the Slocumb's claims. Lewis Kuykendall's words, as recounted by witnesses, did not directly align with the charges. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of Kuykendall. |