Nicholson v. Loeff
| Decision Date | 05 April 1912 |
| Citation | 253 Ill. 526,97 N.E. 1060 |
| Parties | NICHOLSON v. LOEFF. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; William N. Gemmill, Judge.
Action by Herbert Nicholson against Bernhard Loeff. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Louis Greenberg, for plaintiff in error.
P. L. O'Meara (William H. Sexton and J. Kent Greene, of counsel), Hiram T. Gilbert, amicus curiae, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error, Herbert Nicholson, began an action September 2, 1909, against the plaintiff in error, Bernhard Loeff, as surety on an appeal bond. After a trial in the municipal court judgment was entered against plaintiff in error April 30, 1910. This writ of error is sued out on the ground that section 62 of the municipal court act is unconstitutional.
Plaintiff in error argues that the provision of said section which permits abbreviated forms of entries of orders is unconstitutional and void, being in contravention of section 18 of the schedule of the Constitution of 1870.
A final judgment, written out in full, is found in the record. This is apparently an expansion of the abbreviated judgment entry given above. So far as the transcript shows, it was written out April 30, 1910. It is in conformity with well-known and established forms for entering orders in actions on bonds. The bill of exceptions found in the transcript sets forth that on June 14, 1911, plaintiff in error moved to quash the execution, and evidence was introduced showing an abbreviated docket entry of April 30, 1910, and other entries not here involved. The court overruled this motion to quash, but it is not shown in this bill of exceptions that it then ordered the complete record written up, or that said abbreviated docket entry of April 30, 1910, was the only docket entry or final judgment order in said cause. There is nothing in this abbreviated docket entry to contradict or impeach the complete judgment order.
[1][2] The general rule is that the record of a court imports absolute verity, and cannot be contradicted or amended, except by other matter of record made by or under the authority of the court. 1 Black on Judgments, §§ 135, 165; Coughran v. Gutcheus, 18 Ill. 390;Metzger v. Morley, 197 Ill. 208, 64 N. E. 280,90 Am. St. Rep. 158. As the transcript in this cause shows that the final judgment was, on the day it was rendered, written out in conformity with established rules of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pulliam
... ... People v. Bouderioyni, 299 Ill. 96, 132 N. E. 501;People v. Kuhn, 291 Ill. 154, 125 N. E. 882;Nicholson v. Loeff, 253 Ill. 526, 97 N. E. 1060;Wolf v. Hope, 210 Ill. 50, 70 N. E. 1082;Keller v. Brickey, 63 Ill. 496. Entries in the record of a criminal ... ...
-
People ex rel. Lange v. Old Portage Park Dist.
...to be annexed, the sufficiency of the signatures can afterwards be questioned, inasmuch as the record imports verity. Nicholson v. Loeff, 253 Ill. 526, 97 N. E. 1060. It is true that a county judge under the Park Act of 1895 and the amendments thereto performs judicial functions. People v. ......
-
People v. Ambolo
... ... Metzger v. Morley, 197 Ill. 208, 64 N. E. 280,90 Am. St. Rep. 158;Nicholson v. Loeff, 253 Ill. 526, 97 N. E. 1060. The law is well settled that the record must affirmatively show that defendant was present in court at the ... ...
-
People v. Archambault, 13655.
... ... 436. The record imports verity, and must prevail over affidavits in contradiction of it. Gillespie v. People, 176 Ill. 238, 52 N. E. 250;Nicholson v. Loeff, 253 Ill. 526, 97 N. E. 1060.Nothing appears in support of defendant's motion to authorize or justify a disregard of the record, and the ... ...