People v. Summers

Decision Date31 December 1854
Citation16 Ill. 173,1854 WL 4814,6 Peck 173
PartiesTHE PEOPLE, to the use of William Smith et al.,v.JOHN D. SUMMERS et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

16 Ill. 173
1854 WL 4814 (Ill.)
6 Peck (IL) 173

THE PEOPLE, to the use of William Smith et al.,
v.
JOHN D. SUMMERS et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

December Term, 1854.


THIS cause was heard before WOODSON, Judge, at October term, 1851, of the Hancock Circuit Court.

BROWNING and BUSHNELL, for Plaintiffs in Error.WHEAT and GROVER, for Defendants in Error.

TREAT, C. J.

It appears from the record in this case, that an action of debt was commenced in the Hancock county court, in the name of the People of the State of Illinois, to the use of William Smith and Jeremiah Smith, against Thomas Summers, Robert B. Gilmore and John D. Summers, upon an administrator's bond, executed by Thomas Summers as principal, and the other defendants as sureties. The debt demanded in the process was $1000, and the damages, $250. Gilmore and John D. Summers only were served with process. They

[16 Ill. 174]

appeared and moved to dismiss the suit, because the county court was without jurisdiction. The court overruled the motion, and entered judgment against them for $153.98, damages. They presented an appeal to the circuit court, and that court dismissed the suit on the ground that the county court had no jurisdiction. It does not appear what was the penalty of the administrator's bond.

Sec. 5, Chap. 85, Revised Statutes, provides that “probate justices shall have jurisdiction of all cases of debt and assumpsit, express or implied, where executors or administrators shall be parties, plaintiff or defendant, and where the amount on either side, claimed to be due, shall not exceed two thousand dollars.” Sec. 12 provides, “that administrators, executors and their sureties, may be sued on their bonds, in the probate court, subject to the limitation contained in section five of this chapter, and the proof and proceedings shall be as in ordinary cases.” The act of the 12th February, 1849, transfers this power and jurisdiction to the county court. Sec. 69, Chap. 109, Rev. Stat. provides, that the bonds of executors and administrators, “may be put in suit and prosecuted against all or any one of the obligors named therein, in the name of the people of the State of Illinois, for the use of any person or persons who may have been injured by reason of the neglect or improper conduct of any such executor or administrator as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Stacey
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 31, 1880
    ... ... [6 Ill.App. 521] APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Morgan county, the Hon. CYRUS EPLER, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed June 29, 1880.Mr. W. H. BARNES and Mr. CHARLES A. BARNES, for appellant; that suit can be brought for the use of all persons injured, cited the People v. Summers, 16 Ill. 173; The People v. Randolph, 24 Ill. 324; Chitty's Pl. 4; Swan's Pr. 35.Mr. WILLIAM THOMAS, Mr. J. KETCHAM, Messrs. BROWN, KIRBY & RUSSELL, and Messrs. MORRISON, WHITLOCK & LIPPINCOTT, for various appellees; that the interests of the obligees are several, and a single action in favor of ... ...
  • Pinkstaff v. People of State
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1871
    ... ... 152]It is further urged, that the penalty of the bond was $2500, yet the court gave judgment for only $900 debt, to be discharged by the payment of $812.48 damages. This court held, in The People v. Summers, 16 Ill. 173, that in suits on administrators' bonds, the judgment need not be for the full penalty of the bond; and in The People v. Randolph, 24 ib. 325, it was held, that a recovery on an administrator's bond would not, under the peculiar provisions of the statute, bar a second suit. The amount ... ...
  • Wood v. the People.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1854
    ...indictment against Dunham. The term presentment is not improperly employed for that purpose. However this may be, the allegations of the [16 Ill. 173]scire facias obviate any difficulty in the case. It is distinctly averred that the sheriff had full authority to take the recognizance. Under......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT