St. Louis, Alton and Rock Island R. R. Co. et al. v. Hawk's Admr's.
| The defendants initiated debt actions against the railroad company based on a conditional instrument. The declarations claimed damages not paid by the company. Although the instrument acknowledged several obligees with individual interests, the declarations didn't specify the extent of these interests. The court considered the instrument as several, allowing each obligee to sue separately, but no one could recover more than their share. The lack of clarity in the declarations led to the reversal of judgments. |
Abrams v. Lee
After a prior appeal in Lee v. Abrams (12 Ill. 111), Abrams sought to recommit the case in Scott county. The circuit court denied Abrams's motion as the case had already been adjudicated and finalized in a prior court session. Abrams appealed, and the Supreme Court upheld the circuit court's decision, affirming the judgment entered in favor of the defendant. Further proceedings were deemed unnecessary.
Abrams v. Pomeroy et al.
Abrams filed a writ of error with the purpose to make the writ a supersedeas. Pomeroy made a motion for Abrams to file abstracts for trial this term, but the Supreme Court refused the motion. See 13 Ill. 133.
Abrams v. Pomeroy et al.
Pomeroy, Durkee, & Co. sued Abrams in an action of assumpsit based on a guaranty agreement. Abrams attempted to refute liability, but the court upheld the Pomeroy's claim, deeming the written agreement conclusive. Abrams's oral testimony, which contradicted the terms of the agreement, was deemed inadmissible. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. See also 13 Ill. 298.
Adams v. Hardin
Hardin sued Adams to recover a debt on a promissory note. The circuit court found for Hardin. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment, noting that the circuit court wrongly sustained Hardin's demurrer to Adams's plea. The declaration began as a Debt action but concluded as an assumpsit action. Debt and Assumpsit cannot be combined in one declaration, constituting the initial error.
Abrams v. Taylor
Taylor sued Abrams in an action of debt based on a receipt acknowledging receipt of corn. Abrams argued the statute of limitations and pleaded nil debet. The circuit court found in favor of Taylor, citing the receipt and a note as evidence. However, the Supreme Court ruled the evidence insufficient to establish liability, reversing the judgment and remanding the case. The Court determined the receipt didn't clearly indicate the nature of the transaction.