Morgan v. Ladd
| Decision Date | 31 December 1845 |
| Citation | 1845 WL 3952,2 Gilman 414,7 Ill. 414 |
| Parties | THOMAS MORGANv.JAMES L. LADD et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
BILL IN CHANCERY for an injunction, etc., in the Scott circuit court, filed by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error. The cause was heard before the Hon. Samuel D. Lockwood, at the June special term, 1842, when a decree was rendered making the injunction perpetual, and directing, among other things, the payment of $92.54 to the defendant in the court below.
In this court, the plaintiff in error moved for leave to file two replications to the plea of the defendants in error, the substance of which plea is stated in the opinion of the court. The court denied the motion. He then filed one replication, the substance of which is stated in connection with the plea. The replication which was excluded, stated in effect, that it was not true that the plaintiff in error received the money in discharge of the errors as specified in the plea, and concluded to the country.
M. MCCONNELL, for the plaintiff in error.
J. J. HARDIN and D. A. SMITH, for the defendants in error.
This was a bill in chancery filed by Ladd and others agains Thomas Morgan. On a final hearing of the cause, a decree was rendered directing, among other things, the payment to Morgan of $92.54, brought into court by the complainants and deposited with the clerk. Morgan has brought the record into this court, and assigned errors. The defendants in error have filed a plea, averring, that after the entering of the decree, and before the sueing out of the writ of error, Morgan accepted the said sum of $92.54, and thereby released all errors. To this plea, Morgan has filed a replication, alleging, that after the receipt of the money by him, he tendered back the same to the clerk, who refused to receive it; and offering to bring the money into this court to be subject to its order and direction. There is a demurrer to this replication.
The plea is good. The acceptance of the money operated as a release of errors. The case of Thomas v. Negus & Robbins is in point, and subsequent reflection has but confirmed us in the propriety of that decision. The replication presents no valid answer to the plea. It admits the receipt of the money, but seeks, by restoring it, to avoid the effect of the plea. We think this can not be done; counsel may have inferred otherwise, from an incidental expression in the case before referred to. The remark...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKain v. Mullen
...point so hold. Among them are Paine v. Woolley, supra; Dunham v. Randall, supra; Portland Con. Co. v. O'Neil, 24 Or. 54, 32 P. 764; Morgan v. Ladd, 7 Ill. 414. "Payment produces a permanent and irrevocable after which the judgment cannot be restored by any subsequent agreement, nor kept on ......
-
BA MORTGAGE, LLC v. Burgholzer
...error to reverse it." Corwin v. Shoup, 76 Ill. 246, 249 (1875); see also Trapp v. Off, 194 Ill. 287, 302, 62 N.E. 615 (1901); Morgan v. Ladd, 7 Ill. 414, 415 (1845). A party cannot, by his voluntary act, invite the court to exercise its jurisdiction and at the same time deny that jurisdicti......
- Smith v. Adam Byrd.