Russell v. Samuel H. Sargent.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1880 |
| Citation | 7 Bradw. 98,7 Ill.App. 98 |
| Parties | CHARLES R. RUSSELL, Impl'd,v.SAMUEL H. SARGENT. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of Wabash county; the Hon. T. B. TANNER, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed August 13, 1880.
Messrs. BELL & GREEN, for plaintiff in error; that judges of the circuit court hold their office for six years, and until their successors are elected and qualified, cited Constitution, Art. VI, §§ 12, 32.
Courts will take judicial notice of the election and qualification for office of judges of the circuit court, and when they go out of office: 1 Greenleaf's Ev. 363; Watson v. Hay, 3 Kerr, 559.
A judicial act can only be performed by one who is a judge at the time the act is done: Hoagland v. Creel, 81 Ill. 506; Bishop v. Nelson, 83 Ill. 60.
Fraud must be proved, it is never presumed: McConnell v. Wilcox, 1 Scam. 344; Wright v. Grover, 27 Ill. 426; Bryant v. Simoneau, 51 Ill. 324.
An instrument under seal imports a consideration: Buckmaster v. Grundy, 1 Scam. 310; Evans v. Edwards, 26 Ill. 279; Benjamin v. McConnell, 4 Gilm. 536.
Mr. S. Z. LANDS, for defendant in error; that if the decree is void, plaintiff has no standing in court, cited Hoagland v. Creel, 81 Ill. 506.
Bringing the record into this court, is a recognition of its validity: Blackburn v. Bell, 91 Ill. 434.
The authority of the judge who rendered the decree cannot be questioned collaterally: Freeman on Judgments, § 148; Case v. State, 5 Ind. 1; State v. Anon. 2 Nott & McCord, 27; State v. Alting, 12 Ohio, 6.
This was a bill in chancery, brought by defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, and others in the Wabash Circuit Court. At the October term, A. D. 1879, of said court, the following entry was made in said cause: “On this day came the parties by their solicitors, and on motion this cause is submitted to be decided in vacation as of this term, and of this day of this term.”
The record further shows that, “afterwards, to wit: on the the 20th day of June, A. D. 1879 (being in vacation), the further proceedings were had and entered of record in said cause, which are in the words and figures following, to wit.” Then follows the decree in favor of complainant. At the succeeding November term of said court, that being the first term after the filing of the decree, the plaintiff in error having given notice, filed written exceptions to the decree, and moved to vacate the same, and set it aside, for the reason that the judge's term of office had expired before said decree was filed with the clerk, and because a term of court had intervened since the submission of the cause to the judge, and before the time of the filing of the decree. The motion was overruled, and the cause is brought to this court by a writ of error. The fourth error assigned is that, “the decree was filed by the judge rendering the same in vacation and after the expiration of his term of office.”
The Constitution provides that the terms of office of judges of circuit courts shall be six years. Art. 7, Sec. 12.
Section 14 of same article provides, that the election of judges of the circuit court shall be held on the first Monday in June in the year 1873, and every six years thereafter, and section 29 of the same article provides that all judicial officers shall be commissioned by the Governor; and it is further provided, in section 32 of said article, that all officers provided for in said article shall hold their offices until their successors are qualified. The election and qualification of judges of the circuit court are public acts of which this court will take judicial notice. The decree in this case seems to have been prepared by the judge on the 6th day of June, A. D. 1879, but for some reason it failed to reach the office of the clerk or was not filed by him until the 20th day of June, A. D. 1879. It had no effect, and was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crane v. First Nat. Bank of McHenry
...present section 1010 of the New York Code. For similar holdings in other jurisdictions, see Wilson v. Rodewald, 61 Miss. 228,Russell v. Sargent, 7 Ill. App. 98, and State ex rel. v. Allen, 235 Mo. 298, 138 S. W. 339; and for similar facts and holding see Cain v. Libby, 32 Minn. 491, 21 N. W......
-
Billings v. Parsons
... ... Connelly v. Ashworth, 98 Cal. 205; Russell v ... Sargent, 7 Ill.App. 98; Hastings v. Hastings, ... 31 Cal. 95; Van Court v. Winterson, 61 ... ...
-
Crane v. First National Bank of Mchenry
...of the present § 1010 of the New York Code. For similar holdings in other jurisdictions, see Wilson v. Rodewald, 61 Miss. 228; Russell v. Sargent, 7 Ill.App. 98; State ex rel. Chandler v. Allen, 235 Mo. 298, S.W. 339 and for similar facts and holding see Cain v. Libby, 32 Minn. 491, 21 N.W.......
-
Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Tumlin
...adjudication. 3 Jones, on Mortgages (8 Ed.) 588. Disregarding this, however, and fully conscious of authority to the contrary, Russell v. Sargent, 7 Ill.App. 98, in appellee's brief, we do not subscribe to the doctrine that the actions of a court are so dependent on the person of the presid......