Schemmel v. Cooksley
| Decision Date | 17 December 1912 |
| Citation | 100 N.E. 141,256 Ill. 412 |
| Parties | SCHEMMEL et al. v. COOKSLEY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; John J. Rooney, Judge.
Action by B. J. Schemmel and another against William Cooksley. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
Louis Ziv, of Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.
Eric Winters, of Chicago, for defendant in error.
The plaintiffs in error sued the defendant in error on a judgment recovered before a justice of the peace in the state of Iowa and were defeated by the defense of the five years' statute of limitations. This court has held that the period of limitations within which an action may be brought in this state upon a judgment rendered in another state is five years. Bemis v. Stanley, 93 Ill. 230;Ambler v. Whipple, 139 Ill. 311, 28 N. E. 841,32 Am. St. Rep. 202;Schuler v. Schuler, 209 Ill. 522, 71 N. E. 16;Davis v. Munie, 235 Ill. 620, 85 N. E. 943. The plaintiffs in error insist that this limitation is in violation of section 1 of article 4 of the Constitution of the United States, and have therefore brought the judgment to this court for review.
It is insisted that the judgment will not be barred in the state of Iowa until the lapse of 20 years, and that to hold it barred in a shorter time in this state is to deny to it the full faith and credit guaranteed by the federal Constitution. The case of Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290, 18 L. Ed. 475, is cited to sustain this position; but the conclusion that it does so rests upon an entire misapprehension of the case. The statute of Mississippi which was there held invalid was not a statute of limitations, but prohibited absolutely the maintenance of an action upon any judgment or decree rendered outside of the state of Mississippi of the character mentioned in the statute. The court stated expressly that the validity of limitation laws of the states, if not unreasonable in their terms, could not be questioned, and referred with approval to McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312, 10 L. Ed. 177, in which it was stated that the court did not entertain a doubt that the statute of limitations of Georgia could be pleaded to an action in that state founded upon a judgment rendered in the state of South Carolina.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ball v. Haughton, 76-1368
...years with the running not tolled by a nonresident's absence from the state. Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 83, par. 19; Schemmel v. Cooksley (1912), 256 Ill. 412, 100 N.E.2d 141; Davis v. Munie (1908), 235 Ill. 620, 85 N.E. 943; see also, Light v. Light (1957), 12 Ill.2d 502, 147 N.E.2d Here, the ......
-
Truscon Steel Co. of Canada v. Biegler
...cause of action accrued.” An action based upon a judgment rendered in another state must be brought within five years. Schemmel v. Cooksley, 256 Ill. 412, 100 N.E. 141, and such action is a “civil action” within the meaning of sec. 15. Bemis v. Stanley, 93 Ill. 230. The Bemis case was an ac......
-
People of State of Wis. v. Ubrig
...provided for. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 110, par. 13-205; Light v. Light (1957), 12 Ill.2d 502, 506, 147 N.E.2d 34; Schemmel v. Cooksley (1912), 256 Ill. 412, 413, 100 N.E. 141; Davis v. Munie (1908), 235 Ill. 620, 621, 85 N.E. 943; Bemis v. Stanley (1879), 93 Ill. 230, 231-33; see also Haugh......
- Birds Drainage Dist. v. Cairo, V.&C. Ry. Co.