Abbott et al. v. Semple
Semple filed an assumpsit lawsuit against Abbott and Lemon for a promissory note. Abbott was served, Lemon wasn't found. At a special court term, defendants' motion to quash the writ were overruled, leading to a default judgment. Abbott and Lemon appealed, arguing lack of proper summons for Lemon. Court ruled both defendants appeared through their attorneys, making Lemon's absence irrelevant. The judgment was upheld, emphasizing that appearing for any purpose constitutes a general appearance, affirming the lower court's decision
Gudgell v. Pettigrew
| The bill alleged Pettigrew and Gudgell formed a partnership with no time limit, investing $1,482.96 and $900, respectively. After several changes in partnership, disputes arose over debts, collections, and property sales. Arbitrators awarded Pettigrew & Co. $518, plus costs. Gudgell was to pay two judgments and cancel a property sale. The court confirmed the award, decreeing payments within specified time frames. Despite objections, the court found the decree and award conclusive, affirming them. |
Dix et al. v. Chicago City Insurance Company
| In these cases, plaintiffs, representing a business, sued Mercantile Insurance Company for failing to honor fire insurance policies. The court upheld a demurrer, ruling the plaintiffs lacked legal interest due to a partner's prior transfer of ownership. The policy's condition voided coverage upon transfer of interest. The court affirmed the judgment. |
| Notes: This case came before the court upon the same state of pleadings as Dix et al. v. Mercantile Insurance Company. The opinion covers both cases. |
Tompkins v. Hill
| Hill sued Tompkins in assumpsit to recover money paid to satisfy a note held by Tompkins as security. Despite Tompkins' demurrer, damages were awarded. However, the court found no grounds to overturn precedent regarding voluntary payment of usury, stating the legislature didn't intend to create a cause of action in such cases. As the payment wasn't compelled, Tompkins could have resisted, making the demurrer valid. Thus, the judgment was reversed. |
Kelly et al. v. Cecil Bank of Maryland
| The Superior Court of Chicago heard two assumpsit actions, Kelly et al. v. Cecil bank of Maryland and Kelly et al. v. Downs, in 1860 over promissory notes. Despite identical proceedings, the appellants sought a venue change just before trial, citing prejudice. The court rightly denied the motion, deeming one day's notice insufficient and rejecting late affidavits. The appellants' tardiness and lack of justification mirrored precedent. Consequently, the court's decisions were upheld, affirming the judgment. |
Adams v. Bishop et al.
Adams sued Bishop and others in an action of ejectment. The circuit court found for Bishop because Adams presented an invalid deed as evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision because the deed lacked proper acknowledgment, violating Ohio law. The lower court's rejection of the flawed deed was justified, ensuring adherence to legal standards.
Adams v. Hardin
Hardin sued Adams to recover a debt on a promissory note. The circuit court found for Hardin. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment, noting that the circuit court wrongly sustained Hardin's demurrer to Adams's plea. The declaration began as a Debt action but concluded as an assumpsit action. Debt and Assumpsit cannot be combined in one declaration, constituting the initial error.