Morgan v. Corlies

• Decision Date: 31 January 1876
• Citation: 81 Ill. 72,1876 WL 9917
• Parties: THOMAS L. MORGAN et al.v.HENRY D. CORLIES.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

81 Ill. 72

1876 WL 9917 (Ill.)

THOMAS L. MORGAN et al.

v.HENRY D. CORLIES.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1876.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Champaign county; the Hon. LYMAN LACEY, Judge, presiding.

Mr. C. M. HARDY, for the plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. SWEET & DAY, for the defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:

From the time of the filing of the bill to the rendition of the decree, the court in which the cause was pending was held by several different judges, representing four different circuits, and it is urged that, as the record fails to show the reason why a circuit judge elected and residing in another circuit held the court in the county where the cause was pending, the proceedings are void.

It was held in Jones v. Albee, 70 Ill. 34, that a circuit judge of one circuit might legally hold court in another; and in Reitz v. The People, 77 Ill. 518, it was held, that when the placita of a record shows that a judge of another circuit presided at the trial, it will be presumed that he did so by request of the proper judge, whose duty it was to hold courts in such county; that while it would be well for the placita to show such fact, yet it was not indispensable that it should.

These decisions must be held conclusive of the question raised.

The next ground of error relied upon is, the order striking from the files a plea interposed by the defendants, of another suit pending, wherein the same matters are involved. The order was proper, for the reason that the day previous a stipulation was filed, that the defendants should have until the last day of the term of court to answer, and in consideration of the extension of time they were to answer to the merits of the bill. The court, no doubt, regarded the plea as a violation of the stipulation which had been filed, and could do no less than order it stricken from the files, on the motion made for that purpose.

It is also urged that it was error for Judge Smith to enter an order in the cause requiring the defendants to produce in court certain books of account, relating to matters involved in the bill, as he had previously acted as one of the solicitors for the complainant.

It does not, however, appear that any objection was interposed by the defendants to the action taken, at the time the order was made, and, in the absence of objection, we will presume the order was entered by consent.

Certain depositions have been transcribed into the record, which, it is urged, should not have been read in evidence on the trial, as they contain no caption or certificate, and are defective in other respects.

A sufficient answer to the position assumed...