Richardson v. Beldam
| Decision Date | 25 January 1887 |
| Parties | RICHARDSON, by Assignee, v. BELDAM. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to First district.
Frederick Ullmann, R. S. Thompson, and Tenney, Bashford & Tenney, for plaintiff in error.
H. T. & L. Helm, for defendant in error.
On the fifth day of October, which was a day in the September term, 1885, of the circuit court of Cook county, a judgment by confession was entered in that court in favor of Thomas Beldam against Merrick A. Richardson. An execution issued on such judgment was placed in the hands of the sheriff, who at once levied it upon a stock of goods as the property of the judgment debtor. Shortly after the execution was levied upon his property, defendant made a voluntary assignment of his effects to John A. Roche, for the benefit of his creditors. Among the effects assigned, were the goods levied upon by virtue of the execution in the hands of the sheriff that had been issued on the judgment so confessed. The assignee of the judgment debtor then appeared in the circuit court, where the judgment had been confessed by his counsel, and entered a motion ‘to vacate and set aside the judgment therein entered, and to quash the writ of execution issued thereon.’ The grounds for vacating the judgment and quashing the execution, as stated in the written motion submitted on behalf of the assignee, Roche, are as follows: ‘(1) That said judgment was not entered in open court; (2) that, at the time said judgment was entered, the said circuit court of Cook county was not in session; (3) that, at the time the execution was issued on said judgment, and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Cook county, no judgment had, in fact, been entered in said court.’ It seems the circuit court heard evidence on the matters set forth in the written motion of the assignee, but refused to vacate the judgment and quash the execution that had been issued on it. That decision of the circuit court was afterwards affirmed in the appellate court of the first district, and the assignee brings the case to this court on error.
On inspecting the record in this case, it is seen it does not afford the slightest support to any ground suggested against the validity of the judgment. It affirmatively appears the September term, 1885, of the circuit court was in session when the judgment was confessed; that it adjourned on Saturday, the third day of October, 1885, until Monday morning next thereafter, at 10 o'clock; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mott v. Holbrook
... ... v. Schroeder, 40 Kan. 507, 20 P. 230; Weigley v ... Matson, 125 Ill. 64, 8 Am. St. Rep. 335, 16 N.E. 881; ... Roche v. Beldam, 119 Ill. 320, 10 N.E. 191; ... Settlemier v. Sullivan, 97 U.S. 444, 24 L.Ed. 1110; ... Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391, 94 Am. Dec. 742; ... Dec. 107; ... Chappel v. Chappel, 12 N.Y. 215, 64 Am. Dec. 496; ... Dunham v. Waterman, 17 N.Y. 9, 72 Am. Dec. 406; ... Richardson v. Fuller, 2 Ore. 179; Utah Nat. Bank ... v. Sears, 13 Utah 172, 44 P. 832; Puget Sound Nat ... Bank v. Levy, 10 Wash. 499, 45 Am. St. Rep ... ...
-
Crim v. Crim
...v. Hill, 35 Ohio St. 141. Such judgments are also valid in other states. Hansen v. Schlesinger (Ill. Sup.) 17 N. E. 718; Roche v. Beldam, 119 Ill. 320, 10 N. E. 191; Holden v. Bull, 1 Pen. & W. 460; Ely v. Karmany, 23 Pa. 314; Stein v. Brunner (La.) 7 South. 718; Shoe Co. v. Falk (Wis.) 61 ......
- Coryell v. Klehm
-
Karnes v. Keck
... ... In Roche v. Beldam, 119 Ill. 320, 10 N. E. 191, 192, the court held that it could not be shown by parol, "the judgment was in fact rendered * * * at an hour earlier ... ...