Justice Detail

Adams et al. v. Shepard

Adams sued Shepard in an action of replevin. The circuit court found for Adams but delayed judgment due to pending damages assessment. When Adams later sought a non-suit, the defendant contested, arguing it was after final determination. The Illinois Supreme Court determined the non-suit was permissible as material issues, particularly damages, remained unresolved. Thus, the lower court's judgment was upheld.

Brush v. Seguin and Byrns

The material facts contained in this record, and the questions presented, are the same as those in the case of Brush v. Seguin et al. (24 Ill. 254). The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Smith et al. v. Nelson

The facts in this case are the same as the foregoing (Nelson v. Smith et al.), but the finding of the jury was for the plaintiff below. The reasoning in the above opinion applies to this case in every particular. The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

Carter v. Moses

In January 1861, Hiram P. Moses filed a chancery bill against Roswell Carter, Seth Wadhams, J. Young Seammon, and another party. Moses and Wadhams borrowed $3,000 from Carter in 1853, securing it with a deed of trust. Over time, they issued more notes, leading to a dispute. The court ruled in Moses's favor, declaring certain notes paid and ordering Carter to repay $570, but denied recovery of usurious interest. Carter appealed, but the decision stood. At the April term of 1865 a rehearing was requeseted, but subsequently refused.

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.

People et al. v. Lott et al.

In July 1858, plaintiffs filed a bill concerning the estate settlement of P. Jarboe, alleging mismanagement by administrators. They cited breaches of administration bonds, improper credits, and mishandled estate funds. Despite objections and demurrers, the court ruled against defendants, save for E. Lott. Subsequent filings and counter-arguments ensued, including a cross-bill by Job Collins. The court ultimately upheld the validity of the additional bonds but found the initial bond's sureties released from liability. The bill lacked essential parties, leading to its dismissal.

Illinois Report 36 Ill 447 is part of this case. Case 003284 (missing) may be part of this case. Pp 155-156 belong with case 003363/27 Ill 194 and 003329 (missing).