Chase v. Dana
| Decision Date | 30 April 1867 |
| Citation | 44 Ill. 262,1867 WL 5140 |
| Parties | PHILANDER CHASEv.GILES C. DANA. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Stark county; the Hon. MARION WILLIAMSON, Judge, presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Mr. J. W. HEWITT, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. M. A. FULLER, for the defendant in error.
This was an action of ejectment brought by plaintiff in error, at the November Term, 1865, of the Stark Circuit Court, against defendant in error, for the recovery of the W. 1/2 S. E. qr. and the N. E. 1/4 of the S. E. qr. of sec. 31, township 12 north, in range 7 east. The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, by consent, and resulted in a judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff proved possession of the premises, under claim of title by deed, from 1852 till 1863, when he was evicted by the tenants of defendant. There is no dispute that plaintiff previously owned the premises, but it is insisted that his title was transferred to defendant, by a sale under an execution, and a judgment confessed under a warrant of attorney, executed by plaintiff, in favor of defendant. The power of attorney, the note, the judgment order, the execution and sheriff's deed, were all read in evidence on the trial.
It is, however, contended, that the confession of the judgment was not authorized by the power of attorney; and that, for want of such authority, the judgment, and all subsequent proceedings under it, were void, and conferred no title to the land. It appears that the note was dated on the 24th of April, 1856. The power of attorney bears date on the 4th day of June, 1858, and authorizes T. J. Henderson, or any other attorney, to confess a judgment against the maker, for the amount of a note which is therein described as similar to the note upon which judgment was confessed, except it is described as bearing date on the 24th day of April, 1846, and is described as a note dearing six per cent; while the note upon which the judgment was rendered is for the payment of the principal sum, with interest, without specifying the rate; the condition in the note is otherwise properly set forth in the power of attorney.
As a general rule, well recognized and firmly established, an attorney in fact is held to a strict compliance with the authority conferred. When he acts, it must, to be sustained, be within the scope of his authority. It must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weber v. Powers
...such judgment is a nullity, and binds no one, and may be attacked collaterally for want of jurisdiction in the court to render it. Chase v. Dana, 44 Ill. 262;Tucker v. Gill, 61 Ill. 236;Roundy v. Hunt, 24 Ill. 598;Frye v. Jones, 78 Ill. 627;Mayer v. Pick, 192 Ill. 561, 61 N. E. 416,85 Am. S......
-
Village of Dolton v. S. Ellen Dolton Estate
...an attorney in fact appointed to serve the opposite party and hence held to a strict compliance with his written authority. Chase v. Dana, 44 Ill. 262. The court did not err in denying the prayer of appellants for the vacation of the judgment. The appeal is dismissed as to the Dolton estate......
-
Farmers' Exch. Bank of Elvaston v. Sollars
...to confess judgment. Mayer v. Pick, supra; Whitney v. Bohlen, supra; Frye v. Jones, 78 Ill. 627;Tucker v. Gill, 61 Ill. 236;Chase v. Dana, 44 Ill. 262;Roundy v. Hunt, 24 Ill. 598;Craighead v. Peterson, 72 N. Y. 279, 28 Am. Rep. 150; Kahn v. Lesser, supra. Though it were to be conceded that ......
-
Carpenter v. First Nat'l Bank.
...GARNSEY & KNOX, for appellants; that the judgment entered by the clerk in vacation was void, cited Roundy v. Hunt, 24 Ill. 598; Chase v. Dana, 44 Ill. 262; Tucker v. Gill, 61 Ill. 236. The plaintiff should not have been allowed the opening and close of the case. The affirmative was on defen......