Neely v. People
| Neely was tried for rape in 1851, Stephenson Circuit Court. Jurors were questioned for bias; four had formed opinions based on hearsay. Despite claims of impartiality, all were excluded. The court upheld the decision, citing precedent: jurors must be unbiased and base decisions solely on evidence presented. The judgment was affirmed. |
Adams et al. v. Neeley
Neeley sued Adams, Chase, and Mix over a promissory note made by Mix & Co. Adams claimed they weren't partners when the note was executed, while Chase argued Mix acted alone without their consent. Neeley didn't respond to these pleas but the circuit court found for Neeley. Despite later agreeing to a new trial, Adams and others didn't pay costs as required. The original judgment, thus, remained valid. The court's decision lacked a basis due to unanswered pleas. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment.
Burnap v. Wight
| Burnap initiated an action of debt against Wight over a bond related to a writ of ne exeat. Wight, acting as an attorney, filed the affidavit leading to Burnap's arrest. The petition for the ne exeat was dismissed. Burnap filed a special demurrer to the declaration, challenging its validity. The court found the demurrer unjustified, as the declaration stated a valid cause of action. Unnecessary allegations were disregarded. The circuit court's decision was overturned, necessitating further proceedings. |
| Notes: cases 13 Ill 535 and 14 Ill 303 are related |
Abrams et al. v. Camp
Camp filed a chancery bill against Abrams and Klein, contesting a judgment obtained by Klein on a note given for a gambling debt. Despite failing to prove his defense in the court of law, Camp sought equity. However, since there was no evidence of fraud or surprise, and Camp had the opportunity to present his defense, the Circuit Court's decision to grant perpetual injunction was erroneous. The decree was reversed, and the injunction dissolved.
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.
Board of Trustees of the Illinois and Michigan Canal v. People ex rel. John v. A. Hoe et al.
| The proceeding, initiated to compel the construction of a bridge over the Illinois and Michigan Canal, commenced in La Salle Circuit Court. Despite efforts by Hoes and others to enforce the bridge's construction, the court ordered a mandamus. However, the writ issued was deemed defective, lacking essential facts and grounds for the remedy sought. Consequently, the judgment was overturned due to these substantial defects, with costs incurred by the relators. Illinois Report 14 Ill 402 is also part of this case. |
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.
Street et al. v. McConnel
| In an ejectment action, Street and others sought to reclaim a lot in Jacksonville from McConnell. Evidence showed a chain of conveyances from Arnett to Barton and eventually to the plaintiffs. Despite Barton's deeds, the defendant claimed ownership and acted as such. The court ruled in favor of the defendant initially. However, subsequent legal analysis indicated that the plaintiffs indeed held legal title. The judgment was overturned, and the case was sent back for further proceedings. Illinois Report 17 Ill 253 is also part of this case. |
Adams v. Miller
Adams sued Miller before a justice of the peace to recover a penalty for failing to discharge his duty as a miller, resulting in judgment for Adams. Miller appealed to the circuit court, where the suit was dismissed because the Adams did not provide security for costs at the justice of the peace level. Adams appealed arguing the dismissal was erroneous. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with Adams and reversed the judgment, noting the failure to provide security for costs should have been raised earlier. 12 Ill. 27 is also a part of this case.