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.
Akin et al. v. Lloyd et al.
| Akin and Boyden filed a chancery suit to settle their title to land claimed by Lloyd. The Bureau County Circuit Court dismissed the case because Lloyd's plea contested jurisdiction. Lloyd was a resident of Marshall County. Akin and Boyden appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld that equity suits must be filed where defendant's reside. The Supreme Court the dismissal of the suit. |
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.
Alden v. Garver
| Prouty sold land to Benton, who sold the same land to Garver. Benton failed to pay Prouty, so the land transaction was cancelled and Garver lost his interest in the property. Alden eventually became the owner of the land from Prouty reselling it. Garver sued Alden in a bill of chancery to for Alden to pay Garver the mortgage Garver had taken out for Benton. The Ogle County Circuit Court found for Garver. Alden appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Court reversed the lower court's decree due to the flawed reasoning behind it. The Ogle County Circuit Court misconstrued the intentions of the involved parties and unjustly favored Garver. The original contract between Prouty and Benton should have been upheld, ensuring equitable treatment. The court's duty is to ascertain true intentions and administer justice accordingly. The Supreme Court court remanded the case back to Ogle County. |
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. |
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. |
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.
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. |
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.