Hall v. Marks
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Citation | 34 Ill. 358,1864 WL 2991 |
| Parties | WILLIAM HALLv.LLEWELLYN MARKS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ERROR to Circuit Court of De Kalb County.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
B. F. Parks, for plaintiff in error.
Glover, Cook & Campbell, for defendant in error.
The constitutionality of the sixth and seventh sections of the act of 1857, regulating the practice in the thirteenth judicial circuit is questioned by the assignment of errors upon this record. Those sections declare that when suit is brought upon a written instrument, only for the payment of money, a copy of the declaration may be served with the summons, and a notice to the defendant, that unless he shall appear and plead within twenty days, a judgment will be rendered against him for the amount that is due on the instrument. And if the defendant, after such service, shall fail to appear and plead within that time, judgment may be rendered against him in vacation. If he shall appear and plead, he is required to file an affidavit of merits with his plea.
The second article of our constitution declares that the powers of the government shall be divided into three distinct departments, and each of them confided to a separate body of magistracy, to wit, those which are legislative to one; those which are executive to another; and those which are judicial to another. And the second section of the same article declares that, “No person or collection of persons, being of one of these departments shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as hereinafter expressly directed or permitted, and all acts in contravention of this section shall be void.” The power to adjudge, determine and render a judgment is beyond all question a judicial act, and under this provision can only be done by judicial authority. It belongs to that department, and if exercised by either of the other departments, this provision declares the act void. The rendition of a judgment by default and the assessment of damages is manifestly judicial. Before a default is entered it must be judicially determined that a sufficient summons had issued and legal service has been had upon the defendant, and the assessment of damages belongs to the judicial and not the ministerial department of the court. It must be done by a jury under the direction of the judge, or at least their finding must be passed upon and approved by the court. The consideration of the facts, and the application of the law to those facts, and the conclusion deduced by the court from the law and the facts constitute a judgment. The power to announce and have enforced this conclusion has been confided exclusively to the judiciary of our state government.
The constitution has conferred this power, as we have seen, upon the judicial department, and has only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Vara
...39 N.E.3d 982 (citing Drury v. County of McLean , 89 Ill. 2d 417, 423, 60 Ill.Dec. 624, 433 N.E.2d 666 (1982) ); see also Hall v. Marks , 34 Ill. 358, 363 (1864). As such, a circuit clerk performs no adjudicative or quasi-judicial function and is, instead, " ‘an officer of the court who has......
-
People v. Hible
...107 Ill.Dec. 569, 507 N.E.2d 482, 486 (1987) ). The distinction between judicial and nonjudicial officers was described in Hall v. Marks, 34 Ill. 358, 363 (1864), as follows:“It would be a perversion of language to call a clerk of a court a judicial officer. He is attached to the judicial d......
-
People v. Vara
...265, 53 N.E.3d 319 ; see also Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 18 (explicitly describing circuit clerk as nonjudicial officer); Hall v. Marks , 34 Ill. 358, 363 (1864) (clerk is not a judicial officer but only a ministerial officer of the court).¶ 22 The Wade court next considered the effect of......
-
State v. Sureties of Krohne
... ... 245; In re Rule, 3 Woods, ... 502.) Third, because under constitution clerk has no right to ... admit to bail or fix amount of bail bond. ( Hall v ... Marks, 34 Ill. 358; Morrow v. State, 5 Kan ... 563.) Sureties are not estopped from pleading facts which go ... to show that the bond ... ...