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.
Addix et al. v. Fahnestock et al.
Addix and others obtained a $300 judgment against Merryman. Unsatisfied with the judgment in his favor, Addix posted an unconditional bond for the appeal. Merryman made a motion to dismiss the appeal as it didn't meet statutory requirements. The law stipulated that appeals were only available to the losing party, necessitating a bond covering judgment and costs. The successful party must seek reversal through a writ of error. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
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.
Adams v. Wooldridge
Adams appealed a judgment against him in a case initiated by Wooldridge before a justice of the peace. The circuit court upheld the judgment after Adams attempted to prove the promissory note's illegality due to a gambling wager on the 1840 presidential election. The Supreme Court ruled that such evidence did not constitute a valid defense under applicable statutes. The Court affirmed the judgment was affirmed, then denied a motion for a re-hearing.
Aldrich v. Sharp
Aldrich conveyed real estate to Sharp by mortgage. Two years later, Sharp filed to foreclose the mortgage, and the court ruled in Sharp's favor. Aldrich appealed, and the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decision because the decree was erroneous due to the miscalculation of principal and interest and improper issuance of a writ of possession The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Aiken v. Webster
Aiken sued Webster to recover a debt, but the circuit court ruled for Webster. Aiken appealed the case to the Illinois Supreme Court, resulting in a reversal due to a procedural error. However, no action was taken to remand the case. Aiken made a motion to remand, but the Supreme Court denied the motion because it had been more than three years since the judgment reversal, and Webster could now face unfair consequences. Without proper notice, granting the motion might lead to an unjust trial against Webster.
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.