Hough v. Harvey
| Decision Date | 30 September 1876 |
| Citation | 1876 WL 10502,84 Ill. 308 |
| Parties | DAVID L. HOUGHv.WILLIAM HARVEY et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of LaSalle county; the Hon. EDWIN S. LELAND, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. BUSHNELL, BULL & GILMAN, for the appellant.
Mr. CHARLES HARVEY, and Mr. JOHN W. WIDMER, for the appellees.
On an appeal from the county court, by the appellant here, the circuit court adjusted the account of appellant as an executor, and adjudged that he pay a given amount to appellees, respectively. From that judgment of the circuit court he appealed to this court. In disposing of the case upon that appeal, this court held that courts can not allow interest at ten per cent where there has been no specific agreement for that amount, and that the executor should only have been charged with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, with annual rests, or compounded, and said: “For this error, the decree of the court below will be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to modify the decree in the respect indicated.” Hough v. Harvey, 71 Ill. 72.
When the suit was again placed on the docket of the circuit court, the appellant claimed the right, in the circuit court, to dismiss his appeal from the county court, and moved to dismiss his appeal. The circuit court refused to dismiss this appeal, but modified the decree by a new computation at six per cent interest, instead of ten Appellant again brings the case before this court, and assigns for error the refusal of the circuit court to permit him to dismiss his appeal.
The ruling of the circuit court in refusing to allow this motion, was correct. Had the cause been remanded by this court, for a new trial in the circuit court, then, undoubtedly, the appellant in that court would have had the lawful right to dismiss his appeal at any time before the trial had ended. In this case, however, the substance of the decision of this court was, the affirmance of the findings of fact in the circuit court, upon which the decree was founded. The cause was not remanded for a new trial, but “with directions to modify the decree in the respect indicated;” that is, to modify the decree in so far as a computation of interest at the proper rate would change the amount. Hence, appellant could not dismiss his appeal at will. The trial originally had, fixed the facts. All that remained for the circuit court was, to state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Leighty v. Young
...settled and finally determined. Hollowbush v. McConnel, 12 Ill. 203;Rising v. Carr, 70 Ill. 596;Smith v. Brittenham, 94 Ill. 624;Hough v. Harvey, 84 Ill. 308;Moshier v. Norton, 100 Ill. 63;Newberry v. Blatchford, 106 Ill. 584;Tucker v. People, 122 Ill. 583, 13 N. E. 809;Smyth v. Neff, 123 I......
-
Tribune Co. v. Emery Motor Livery Co.
...Henning v. Eldridge, 146 Ill. 305, 33 N. E. 754;Hook v. Richeson, 115 Ill. 431, 5 N. E. 98;Champaign County v. Reed, 106 Ill. 389;Hough v. Harvey, 84 Ill. 308;Elston v. Kennicott, 52 Ill. 272. There must be an end to litigation, and, where a cause has been decided in the Appellate Court on ......
-
Peck v. the Coalfield Coal Co.
...12 Ill. 204; Semple v. Anderson, 4 Gilm. 561; Diversy v. Johnson, 93 Ill. 547; C. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Holbrook, 92 Ill. 297; Hough v. Harvey, 84 Ill. 308. As to the rule for construction of statutes: Wood v. Blanchard, 19 Ill. 39; Castner v. Walford, 83 Ill. 179; Dicker v. Hughes, 58 Ill.......
-
People ex rel. Wilcox v. Drainage Com'rs of Union Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Pana & Assumption
...decided, and on the second trial the rule of law declared is binding and becomes the law of the case. Rising v. Carr, 70 Ill. 596;Hough v. Harvey, 84 Ill. 308;Champaign County v. Reed, 106 Ill. 389;Newberry v. Blatchford, 106 Ill. 584;Tucker v. People, 122 Ill. 583, 13 N. E. 809;Smyth v. Ne......