Planing Mill Lumber Co. v. the City of Chicago.A1

CourtIllinois Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMCALLISTER
Citation56 Ill. 304,1870 WL 6524
PartiesPLANING MILL LUMBER COMPANY et al. and DAVID KREIGHv.THE CITY OF CHICAGO.a1
Decision Date30 September 1870

56 Ill. 304
1870 WL 6524 (Ill.)

PLANING MILL LUMBER COMPANY et al. and DAVID KREIGH
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO.a1

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1870.


APPEALS from the Superior Court of Chicago.

The opinion states the case.

Mr. EDWARD ROBY, for the appellants.

Mr. M. F. TULEY, for the appellee.

[56 Ill. 305]

Mr. JUSTICE MCALLISTER delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is a singular circumstance, that, in all the thirty-one foregoing cases, there is not one record which contains a placita or convening order of the court. The same defect is apparent, also, in twenty-two other cases, brought from the same court, to, and decided at, the present term of this court. Rich and others v. The City of Chicago. Thus making fifty-three cases at one term; all coming from the same clerk's office, in which the records are all wanting in this obvious requirement of a good record.

It is a matter of regret that we are compelled to reverse these cases for such a defect. But the records are submitted to us in this condition, and the point made. We must therefore reverse, or say that we will dispense altogether with a requirement of the common law, as old as the law itself. So long as justice is administered under the common law, we must adhere to all the substantial forms of that system, except so far as they have been abolished by the legislative department of the State. The experience and wisdom of ages have taught, that these forms are necessary to prevent legal proceedings from degenerating into such looseness and confusion as to render rights acquired under them insecure, and the salutary maxim that a man shall not be twice vexed for one and the same cause, difficult, if not wholly impracticable, of application.

The counsel for the appellee has suggested, that the defect may be aided by the bill of exceptions. This can not be so. The reason why the judgment is not valid is, because it does not appear that there was the proper organization of a court by which a lawful judgment could be rendered. If there were no authority, so far as the record shows, to render the judgment, where is there any to make a valid bill of exceptions? We take judicial notice that the Superior Court of Chicago was, at the time of these proceedings, composed of three judges. The report of the collector is addressed to three judges. Each judge is authorized to hold a separate branch of the court,

[56 Ill. 306]

at the same time. In such case the bill of exceptions should be sealed by the judge who ?? the cause. Law v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 747. There is nothing in either bill of exceptions, or any part of any of the records, to show that the cases were tried before the judge who signed the bills of exceptions. When the record proper is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • People ex rel. Peterson v. Omen, No. 12320.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1919
    ...Apartment House Co. v. O'Brien, 228 Ill. 360, 81 N. E. 1038. This court, in discussing in Planing Mill Lumber Co. v. City of Chicago, 56 Ill. 304, the form of the common law record in the trial court, said (page 305): ‘So long as justice is administered under the common law, we must adhere ......
  • Rogers v. Presnall, Case Number: 1819
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 14, 1912
    ...plaintiffs would have been required to prove a judgment which on its face showed jurisdictional facts. Planing Mill Lbr. Co. v. Chicago, 56 Ill. 304; 23 Cyc. 1521. Plaintiffs contend that the judgment of a court of general jurisdiction is presumed to be regular, and that such judgment canno......
  • Board of Commissioners of Natrona County v. Shaffner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 19, 1902
    ...Ed., 476; Sayles v. Briggs, 4 Metc., 421; Stubbs v. State, 49 Miss. 761; Lawrence v. Fast, 20 Ill. 338; Planing Mill L. Co. v. Chicago, 56 Ill. 304; McKinney v. People, 7 Ill., 552; People v. Bennet, 37 N.Y. 117; Com. v. Hogan, 113 Mass. 7; Bob v. State, 7 Humph., 129; Skinner v. Beshoar, 2......
  • Arkadelphia Lumber Company v. Asman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 26, 1904
    ...to state a fact which should appear on the record proper. Anthony v. Brooks, 31 Ark. 725; Planing Mill Lumber Company v. City of Chicago, 56 Ill. 304. The record in this case fails to show that a special judge presided in the trial, and the presumption is that the regular judge of the court......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • People ex rel. Peterson v. Omen, No. 12320.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1919
    ...Apartment House Co. v. O'Brien, 228 Ill. 360, 81 N. E. 1038. This court, in discussing in Planing Mill Lumber Co. v. City of Chicago, 56 Ill. 304, the form of the common law record in the trial court, said (page 305): ‘So long as justice is administered under the common law, we must adhere ......
  • Rogers v. Presnall, Case Number: 1819
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 14, 1912
    ...plaintiffs would have been required to prove a judgment which on its face showed jurisdictional facts. Planing Mill Lbr. Co. v. Chicago, 56 Ill. 304; 23 Cyc. 1521. Plaintiffs contend that the judgment of a court of general jurisdiction is presumed to be regular, and that such judgment canno......
  • Board of Commissioners of Natrona County v. Shaffner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 19, 1902
    ...Ed., 476; Sayles v. Briggs, 4 Metc., 421; Stubbs v. State, 49 Miss. 761; Lawrence v. Fast, 20 Ill. 338; Planing Mill L. Co. v. Chicago, 56 Ill. 304; McKinney v. People, 7 Ill., 552; People v. Bennet, 37 N.Y. 117; Com. v. Hogan, 113 Mass. 7; Bob v. State, 7 Humph., 129; Skinner v. Beshoar, 2......
  • Arkadelphia Lumber Company v. Asman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • March 26, 1904
    ...to state a fact which should appear on the record proper. Anthony v. Brooks, 31 Ark. 725; Planing Mill Lumber Company v. City of Chicago, 56 Ill. 304. The record in this case fails to show that a special judge presided in the trial, and the presumption is that the regular judge of the court......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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