Coleen and Claypole v. Figgins
| The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court because the writ issued by the Madison County Circuit Court was void. The writ was made returnable to a court not yet in existence. Although the act establishing circuit courts passed on the same day as the issuance of the writ, the Court determined the act didn't take effect until the following day. Thus, the clerk lacked authority to issue the writ. |
Mason v. Buckmaster
| Buckmaster sued Mason in an action of assumpsit to recover a promissory note. The circuit court ruled for Buckmaster, and Mason appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Mason objected to the lack of profert of the note and absence of a stated consideration. The Supreme Court agreed that profert wasn't necessary with writings not under seal and that there was no requirement to state consideration in a case involving an assigned note. |
Sawyer v. Stephenson
| The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court to grant a new trial based on the defendant's motion supported by a juror's affidavit. While new trials should be cautiously granted for juror misconduct, the Court deemed the affidavit's contents sufficient to warrant a retrial. Finding no deviation from established principles, the Court upheld the lower court's judgment, emphasizing the importance of ensuring justice and integrity in trial proceedings. |
Smith use of Johnson v. Bridges
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision because the alleged promissory note failed to contain any features that would identify it as a note.
Collins and Collins v. Waggoner
Waggoner sued Collins and Collins in an action of trespass quare clausum fregit in the Madison County Circuit Court. The circuit court ruled for Waggoner. Waggoner cited an earlier justice of the peace case involving constable McMahon in his replication of this case. Collins and Collins appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court stating Waggoner's replication was in error by mentioning constable McMahon in his replication and not in his declaration. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision stating that if the replication departs from the declaration, it is in error.
Foley v. People
Foley was found guilty of larceny at a special term of the circuit court and appealed the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court, which scrutinized Foley's conviction. The main issue was jurisdiction, contested based on a statute's interpretation. Despite arguments for broad interpretation, the court found the statute's language clear and strict. Larceny, not being a capital offense, falls under bail provisions per the state constitution. The Supreme Court concluded that the court below lacked jurisdiction, refraining from reversing but offering guidance for future clarity.
Mason v. Wash
Wash for the use of the Bank of New York sued Mason for a breach of contract in the Madison County Circuit Court for failing to pay a promissory note. Wash recovered a judgment against Mason, and Mason appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed the judgement and remanded the cause for new proceedings because the statute of Anne (a copyright law) was not construed in the same way as the statutes in Illinois.
Thompson v. Armstrong
| Thompson sued Armstrong in an action of assumpsit to recover an assigned promissory note from 1814. The circuit court ruled for Armstrong and Thompson appealed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case. While the Court found fault with the plaintiff's lack of detail on the assignment's location, it believed the note was assignable and disagreed with the lower court's decision to sustain the demurrer on the grounds of insolvency, deeming it sufficient to excuse due diligence. |
Whiteside v. Bartleson
| Bartleson sued Whiteside In an action of assumpsit to recover a promissory note. The court ruled for Bartleson and assessed damages. Whiteside appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment because the lower court erred in assessing damages against Whiteside without a jury. The liability of Whiteside did not authorize the court to assess damages; such a practice undermined the right to trial by jury. The case was remanded for new proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Tufts v. Rice
| Tufts sued Rice in an action of assumpsit to recover a $25 promissory note dated 1812. Rice pleaded the statute of limitations, and the circuit court ruled for Rice. Tufts appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment. The Court ruled that the statute of limitation act was passed in 1819, so the five year limitation had not yet expired when Tufts originally brought suit. |