Adair v. Maxwell
Maxwell sued Adair to recover Maxwell's entitlement to half of the increased compensation for services rendered after a legislative act raised the Kaskaskia Receiver of the Land Office's pay. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Maxwell, awarding $475.27 and costs. Adair error appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment, concluding thatMaxwell was entitled to half of the increased compensation.
Adams et al. v. Johnson
Johnson sued Adams and others regarding a note for Wood's patent shingle machine and rights assignment within certain districts. Adams presented two defenses: warranty breach and fraudulent vendor representations. The jury found for Johnson and Adams appealed the judgment. After reviewing the trial instructions and evidence, the Supreme Court found no error. The jury's verdict favored Johnson, supported by evidence. The alleged warranty lacked clear intention, and the vendor's statements weren't necessarily fraudulent. The jury's decision was justified. The judgment was upheld.
Illinois Central Ralroad Company v. Lucius S. Cowles
| Cowles sued Illinois Central Railroad for lost goods, initially winning $75.66. The company appealed to the Circuit Court, challenging evidence admissibility and liability. Despite uncertainties about the goods' loss, the court upheld the lower court's decision, deeming evidence inconclusive. The judgment favored Cowles and was affirmed by the court due to lack of compelling evidence against the defendant. |
Pitts v. Leiter
| On November 18th, 1859, judgments were entered in favor of Leiter and Magie concerning two judgment notes. Pitts sought to challenge the judgments, claiming they were entered without his knowledge. Affidavits presented conflicting accounts. The court should have allowed Pitts to defend himself, as the presented defense could hold merit. The court also criticized the sheriff's levy on personal property without first considering Pitts' real estate. The judgments were reversed. |
Harris v. Town of Newark
| The defendants faced penalties for selling ardent spirits in Newark against a town ordinance. However, the ordinances weren't published as required by law. Without publication, they couldn't be enforced. Unlike in Springfield and Quincy, where ordinances must be published before enforcement, Newark failed to do so. Thus, the judgments were overturned, and the cases were sent back for reconsideration. |
Adams et al. v. Logan County
Adams sued Logan County to recover money loaned to the county. The circuit court entered a pro forma judgment for Logan County and the parties took the case to the Supreme Court as an agreed case. The Supreme Court opines that Adams's action cannot be sustained. The Legislature retained full control over Logan County's county seat despite previous arrangements fixing it at Postville. No agreement existed for money repayment or land reversion upon county seat relocation. Donors understood this possibility, hence no safeguards were included in the deed. Expectations of reimbursement via property sales suggest no grounds for additional compensation. Therefore, the circuit court's judgment is affirmed.
Motsinger et al. v. Coleman
| The case stemmed from three promissory notes signed by Paschal Taylor, Eli Taylor, and John Taylor, payable to John Coleman. The county court initially allowed the notes against Thomas F. Wolf, administrator of John Taylor's estate. Later, the guardian of John Taylor's heirs moved to defend against the claim. However, in the circuit court, neither the guardian nor the wards were served notice. Default judgments were issued against the administrator. Despite errors claimed by both parties, the circuit court's judgment was affirmed. |
Welsh et al. v. People
| The court, having considered the matter, referred to Ex parte Welsh, and found no need to reevaluate the right to try the prisoners. Regarding alleged larceny through false pretenses, the court established that if the owner willingly relinquished possession and title to the goods, it amounted to fraud, not larceny. Instructions given by the court clarified distinctions crucial to the case, and objections raised by both parties were addressed appropriately. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed. |
| Notes: case 003216/17 Ill 161 is part of this case. |
Adams v. Bartlett
Bartlett sued Adams in an action of assumpsit. Adams contested the validity of a capias writ, but the circuit court denied Adams's assertion. Both parties waived a jury, and a bench trial led to a judgment in favor of Bartlett. Adams appealed, arguing the denial of the motion to discharge bail. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the judgment, asserting that the motion's outcome wouldn't have changed the trial's result.
Columbus Machine Manufacturing Company et al. v. Ulrich et al.
Not Listed