Humphreyville v. Culver
| Decision Date | 30 September 1874 |
| Citation | 73 Ill. 485,1874 WL 9018 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | THOMAS L. HUMPHREYVILLEv.CULVER, PAGE, HOYNE & CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN BURNS, Judge, presiding. Mr. J. H. KNOWLTON, for the appellant.
Mr. WILLIAM TALCOTT, for the appellees.
Appellees brought suit on a note given by appellant, and described it as bearing date November 20, 1872, when, in fact, it was dated on the same day in November, 1871. Appellant filed a plea of the general issue and notice of special matter of defense. The plea and notice were stricken from the files on motion of appellees, for want of an affidavit of merits. A default was entered and the damages assessed. Subsequently the judgment was set aside by consent of attorneys on both sides, and after being passed at one term on account of the sickness of defendant's attorney, and continued at another because he was engaged in the trial of a cause in another court, at the March term, 1874, the cause was reached for trial on the docket; but, defendant failing to appear, the case was tried and a judgment rendered. A motion, based on affidavits, was made to set aside this second judgment, which the court overruled, and this appeal is prosecuted.
It is first urged that the court below erred in striking the plea and notice from the files, because, under the constitution requiring uniformity in the practice of courts of the same grade, and the legislature having adopted a practice act for the circuit and superior courts, which has not authorized such a practice, the court erred in its action on the motion. Whether this is true or not, we need not inquire, inasmuch as an objection to that decision of the court is not preserved in the bill of exceptions.
It is urged that the note was first indorsed to Culver, Page, Hoyne & Co., then indorsed by them, and that they did not hold the legal title to the note, and could not maintain the action in their names. The record shows an indorsement of the note from the payee to Culver, Page, Hoyne & Co. This assignment is written out in full under the copy of the note, and under it appears the name, Culver, Page, Hoyne & Co.; but whether as an indorsement of the note, or as a mere memorandum, does not appear. It appears that they held the note under a special assignment, and being in possession of it, the presumption is that they owned the legal title to the instrument, and that their names were placed on the note as a mere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peoples Trust & Sav. Bank of Chicago v. Schmitt (In re Schmitt's Estate)
...strike it out. Its existence does not defeat a recovery. Parks v. Brown, 16 Ill. 454;Richards v. Darst, 51 Ill. 140;Humphreyville v. Culver, Page, Hoyne & Co., 73 Ill. 485.” When the note herein was pledged with the auditor of public accounts, it seems to us that the only interest that the ......
-
Steinhagen v. Trull
...was rendered, but we have held that this may be done at a subsequent term when all the parties to the suit consent to it. Humphreyville v. Culver & Co., 73 Ill. 485;Gage v. City of Chicago, 31 N. E. 163, 141 Ill. 642;Sheridan v. City of Chicago, 51 N. E. 898, 175 Ill. 421;Hansmeyer v. India......
-
Krotke v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.
...a court, after 30 days, has the power to alter, modify, or set aside its judgment with the consent of the parties. Humphreyville v. Culver, Page, etc. (1874), 73 Ill. 485. See also Brown v. Miner (1951), 408 Ill. 123, 96 N.E.2d 530; Rossiter v. Soper (1943), 384 Ill. 47, 50 N.E.2d We believ......
-
Henderson v. Davisson
...or strike it out. Its existence does not defeat a recovery. Parks v. Brown, 16 Ill. 454;Richards v. Darst, 51 Ill. 140;Humphreyville v. Culver, 73 Ill. 485; Palmer v. Gardiner, supra; Best v. Bank, supra. The purpose for which the note was delivered to the plaintiff, with the manner of the ......