Hudson v. Hanson
| Citation | 75 Ill. 198,1874 WL 9218 |
| Parties | HENRY HUDSONv.JOSEPH H. HANSON. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1874 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. JOSIAH MCROBERTS, Judge, presiding.
This was a suit originally brought by Joseph H. Hanson against Henry Hudson, before a justice of the peace, upon a promissory note. The material facts of the case appear in the opinion of the court.
Mr. S. W. HARRIS, and Mr. R. E. BARBER, for the appellant.
Mr. GEORGE S. HOUSE, for the appellee.
The promissory note which is the subject of this controversy, purported to have been executed by Henry Hudson to one I. H. Johnson, and by him indorsed to Joseph H. Hanson. It was dated December 13, 1866, and payable six months after date, for value received, and for the sum of seventy-five dollars. It was endorsed by the payee, a few days after its date, and on its maturity, payment being refused, the endorsee, Hanson, commenced an action thereon before a justice of the peace, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant.
On appeal to the circuit court, at the January term, 1870, on a trial there before a jury, the verdict was “no cause of action.” This verdict, on motion of plaintiff, for a new trial, was set aside, and at January term, 1872, the cause was again tried, and the same verdict, in terms, was rendered. A motion for a new trial was made, which, without any special order of continuance, went over to the next June term, at which term the motion was allowed.
At the June term, 1873, and on June 3, the defendant filed his petition for a change of venue, on account, as alleged, of the prejudice of the judge, and alleging that the knowledge thereof did not come to the petitioner until the day previous. The notice served was to the effect that the party would make his application on the ninth of that month.
No motion was in fact made at that term, but at the following October term, the defendant made an affidavit in support of a motion for a change of venue, in which is inserted the application and notice made at the June term, alleging as an excuse for failing to make the motion at that term, that the court had entered an order that all causes then on the common law docket should stand continued for all purposes, except defaults, assessment of damages, motions and settling of issues.
The court disallowed the motion, and directed the affidavit to be stricken from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisher v. State
...... Bell v. Ayers, 44 Conn. 35; Gibbs v. Buckingham, 48. Iowa 96; Bond v. State, 128 Miss. 792, 91 So. 461;. Hudson v. Hanson, 75 Ill. 198; Wheeling v. Black, 25 W. Vt. 266; Riely v. Pellitier, 134. N.C. 316, 46 S.E. 734; 40 Cyc. 140; Looney v. ......
-
Ossey v. Retail Clerks' Union
......83, 51 N. E. 559;Haley v. City of Alton, 152 Ill. 113, 38 N. E. 750;Crane v. Crane, 81 Ill. 165;Richards v. Greene, 78 Ill. 525;Hudson v. Hanson, 75 Ill. 198. [4] Moreover, all of the defendants to the bill of complaint did not seek a change of venue. Hence there was ......
-
Kinzell v. Payne
...... or as soon as practicable after knowledge of the facts upon. which the application is based; and if not so made may. properly be denied." Hudson v. Hanson, 75 Ill. 198; Peoria & R.I.R. Co. v. Mitchell, 74 Ill. 394;. Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. v. Maxfield, 72 Ill. 95;. Kelly v. Downs, 29 Ill. ......
-
Comm'rs of Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Goembel
......750. An application made after the hearing started comes too late. Ossey v. Retail Clerks' Union, supra; Richards v. Greene, 78 Ill. 525;Hudson v. Hanson, 75 Ill. 198. The reason that supports the rule is obvious. It would be highly improper to permit an attorney representing parties to a ......