Hansen v. Schlesinger

• Decision Date: 16 June 1888
• Citation: 17 N.E. 718,125 Ill. 230
• Parties: HANSEN et al. v. SCHLESINGER et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

125 Ill. 230

17 N.E. 718

HANSEN et al.

v.SCHLESINGER et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 16, 1888.

Error to appellate court, First district.

Grant & Brady and Frank P. Leffingwell, (N. W. Bliss, of counsel,) for plaintiffs in error.

Kraus, Mayer & Stein, for defendants in error.

SCOTT, J.

It appears from the record in this court that the June term, 1886, of the superior court of Cook county, convened on the 7th day of June, 1886, the Hon. ELLIOTT ANTHONY, one of the judges of that court, presiding; that afterwards, on the 17th of the same month, in the same year, there was filed in the office of the clerk of that court a certain declaration, note, and warrant of attorney, affidavit, and cognovit, all of which appear in full in the transcript filed in this court; and afterwards, on the 17th day of June, 1886, the same being one of the days of the June term of said court, a judgment by confession was entered in favor of Leopold Schlesinger and David Mayer against Peter Hansen, Joseph A. Hansen, and Daniel B. Hansen for the sum of $5,375.04. On the 26th day of June, 1886, being one of the days of the said June term of court, defendants appeared and entered their motions to have the record amended, and to have the judgment rendered against them set aside and to quash the execution that had been issued on such judgment. These several motions were overruled by the court, and its decisions in that respect were subsequently affirmed by the judgment of the appellate court of the First district. Although the questions raised on this record have been elaborately argued, the views entertained by this court may be briefly stated. Most of the principles of law applicable have been definitely settled by the previous decision of this court in Roche v. Beldam, 119 Ill. 320, 10 N. E. Rep. 191, and need no further discussion. The amendment which the defendants asked should be made was that the record should be corrected so as to show ‘that the branch of the court which is presided over by the Honorable ELLIOTT ANTHONY, one of the judges thereof, did not open on the 17th day of June, 1886, and the judge did not take his seat on the bench till 10 o'clock in the forenoon of that day; that the direction to enter such judgment, and pursuant to which it was entered, was indorsed by the judge upon the declaration filed in the cause, to which was then attached the cognovit, note, and warrant of attorney filed therewith; that such indorsement was made before the hour of 10 o'clock in the forenoon of said 17th day of June, and outside of the court-room which was, at that date, occupied and used by said judge for the holding of his branch of said court.’ There is nothing in this record that shows it was error or even irregular, if the direction given to enter the judgment was in fact made before the hour of 10 o'clock on the day it was rendered. It does not appear from anything in this record that the court was not then in open session. All that appears is that the court convened for that...