Dinet v. Eigenmann
| Decision Date | 17 September 1880 |
| Citation | 1880 WL 10075,96 Ill. 39 |
| Parties | JOSEPH DINETv.CHRISTIAN EIGENMANN, Admr. et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the First District; the Hon. THEODORE D. MURPHY, presiding Justice, and the Hon. GEORGE W. PLEASANTS and Hon. JOSEPH M. BAILEY, Justices,--heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. E. S. WILLIAMS, Judge, presiding.
Mr. HENRY BINMORE, for the appellant.
Mr. JOSEPH PFIRSHING, for the appellees. Mr. JUSTICE DICKEY delivered the opinion of the Court:
The judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the decree of the circuit court must be affirmed. This is a bill by appellant, asking that a judgment at law in the Superior Court of Cook county be set aside, and then that a decree of the Criminal Court of Cook county, on which that judgment was recovered, be also set aside.
It seems that in January, 1870, the wife of appellant filed a bill against him for a divorce in the Recorder's Court of Chicago. That court, under the constitution of 1870, was continued under the name of the Criminal Court of Cook county, with its jurisdiction so changed as to exclude such proceedings as this, but with a provision authorizing that court to dispose of unfinished business pending therein. This case was taken up in that court as unfinished business, and in 1871 the parties had a trial upon the merits, and a verdict rendered against appellant, and a motion was made for a new trial. In this state of affairs the records of the court were destroyed by the great fire of October, 1871. Afterwards, the parties appeared in that court, and, by agreement and an order of the court, restored the record by filing supposed copies of the papers. The cause was taken up at the stage of proceedings before the fire, the motion for a new trial was overruled, and a decree granting the divorce was entered, and afterwards, on a hearing, a decree was entered against appellant for a certain sum in lieu of alimony and dower.
After this, and some time in 1872, the complainant in that suit died intestate. In 1874 letters of administration were granted to appellee Eigenmann. An action at law was begun in the Superior Court of Cook county by this administrator, against appellant, to recover the sum awarded for alimony, as above stated. Defendant pleaded nul tiel record, and this issue was tried and a judgment rendered against appellant for the amount of that decree. A fi. fa. was issued, and afterwards an alias, on which certain real estate was sold, from which $10,000 was credited upon the judgment. Afterwards, in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albright v. Oyster
... ... 413; Bowman v. Field, 9 Mo.App. 576; ... Winn v. Wilson, 1 Hemp. 698; Crim v. Handley, 94 U.S ... [11] Miller v. Bernecker, 46 Mo. 194; Dinet ... v. Eigenmann, 96 Ill. 39 ... [12] Dobbs v. St. Jo. F. & M. Ins. Co. 72 Mo ... [13] Cornelius v. Thomas, 1 Tenn.Ch. 283; ... Winchester v ... ...
-
People v. Penn
...the jurisdiction may raise an estoppel to deny such jurisdiction. 15 Corpus Juris, 844; Kerr v. Burns, 42 Colo. 285, 93 Pac. 1120;Dinet v. Eigenmann, 96 Ill. 39;Knapp, Stout & Co. v. McCaffrey, 178 Ill. 107, 52 N. E. 898,69 Am. St. Rep. 290. Whatever may be said of the effect of the delay i......
-
People v. Gary, 49181
...jurisdiction may raise an estoppel to deny such jurisdiction. 15 Corpus Juris, 844; Kerr v. Burns, 42 Colo. 285, 93 Pac. 1120; Dinet v. Eigenmann, 96 Ill. 39; Knapp, Stout & Co. v. McCaffrey, 178 Ill. 107, 52 N.E. Petitioner's main premise upon which his appeal stands or falls is that the P......