Sheldon v. Vleck
| Decision Date | 29 March 1883 |
| Citation | 106 Ill. 45,1883 WL 10181 |
| Parties | JAIRUS C. SHELDONv.CHARLES H. VAN VLECK et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Champaign county; the Hon. C. B. SMITH, Judge, presiding.
Mr. J. O. CUNNINGHAM, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. FRANCIS M. WRIGHT, for the defendants in error.
Jairus C. Sheldon, the plaintiff in error, brought to the September term, 1882, of the Champaign circuit court, an action of ejectment, against Charles H. and Frank Van Vleck, defendants in error, to recover certain real estate situate in said county, to which the plaintiff claimed title in fee. To the declaration the defendants filed the statutory plea of not guilty, and also a special plea alleging “that at the February special term, 1881, of the circuit court of Champaign county, the plaintiff commenced his certain suit in ejectment for the same identical premises described in plaintiff's declaration in this case, against one Thomas Guard, who was then in possession thereof under and by virtue of the same title, and not otherwise, under which the defendants in this suit now claim said premises; that the said plaintiff filed his declaration in said ejectment suit so brought to said February special term, 1881, of said court aforesaid, to which the defendant therein pleaded the general issue of not guilty; and that afterwards, to-wit, at the September term, 1881, of said circuit court, the issue formed in said court in said cause was tried, and the same title, and none other, under which the plaintiff claims said premises in this suit, was given in evidence, and the same title, and none other, under which these defendants claim said premises, was given in evidence, and the court thereupon then and there adjudged and determined that the said plaintiff have nothing by his action, and then and there gave final judgment upon the trial of said issue upon its merits for the defendant therein; and thereupon the plaintiff moved the said court for a new or second trial under the statute in such cases made and provided, upon condition that plaintiff would pay the costs of said proceeding and suit within the time prescribed by the statute in such cases made and provided, which motion the court did then and there allow, and ordered a second trial of said cause on said condition aforesaid, whereupon said plaintiff did then and there pay the costs of said cause, and did then and there, by reason of the premises, obtain a second trial of the said cause so brought at said special February term, 1881, as aforesaid, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. King
...first judgment in ejectment does not bar, or constitute res judicata on, the second trial. Brownsville v. Cavazos, 100 U.S. 138; Sheldon v. Van Vleck, supra; Kinter v. Jenks, 43 Pa. St. The wording of our statute confirms this view. It provides (G.S. 1894, § 5845) that "thereupon the action......
-
Ladd v. Ladd
...by express enactment provides what matters shall be pleaded, other matters need not be pleaded. Hankins v. People, 106 Ill. 628;Sheldon v. Van Vleck, 106 Ill. 45. The declaration sets forth that the plaintiff ‘claims in fee.’ Under a fair construction of the statute, and by the great weight......
-
The State ex rel. J. Hahn Bakery Co. v. Anderson
... ... 496; Edwards v. Edwards, 22 Ill. 123; ... Railroad v. Hooper, 105 F. 550; Hollingsworth & Vose v. Foxbaurough, 50 N. E. (Mass.) 1037; Sheldon ... v. Van Vleck, 106 Ill. 45; Preachers' Aid ... Society v. England, 106 Ill. 123; Hume v ... Schintz, 42 S.W. 543; Railroad v. Berry, 98 P ... ...
-
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hoppin
...action. When followed by a voluntarynonsuit, the whole action and all its parts are annulled. Edwards v. Edwards, 22 Ill. 121;Sheldon v. Van Vleck, 106 Ill. 45;Preachers' Aid Society v. England, 106 Ill. 125. Counsel for appellants contend that the merits of this case were passed upon when ......