Spangler v. Jacoby
Citation | 1853 WL 4705,58 Am.Dec. 571,4 Peck 297,14 Ill. 297 |
Parties | LEWIS S. SPANGLER, Plaintiff in Error,v.ANDREW JACOBY, Defendant in Error. |
Decision Date | 30 June 1853 |
Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
14 Ill. 297
1853 WL 4705 (Ill.)
58 Am.Dec. 571
4 Peck (IL) 297
LEWIS S. SPANGLER, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
ANDREW JACOBY, Defendant in Error.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
June Term, 1853.
[14 Ill. 298]
THE bill of exceptions in this case shows, that the defendant in the circuit court moved to quash the summons issued in the case, because the said summons was made returnable on the first Monday of May, A. D. 1853, on the first day of the term of the McDonough circuit court, when by law no term of said court was authorized, but the same should be held on a different month. The summons and the return of the sheriff are also shown.The agreed case shows, that prior to the meeting of the legislature then next preceding, the times fixed for holding the McDonough circuit court were the third Mondays in April and November of each year; that at the preceding session of the legislature, a bill was introduced in the senate of said legislature, in which it was provided that McDonough county should be added to the fifteenth judicial circuit and be part thereof, (said county having previously constituted a part of the fifth judicial circuit,) and that the times of the holding of the circuit court in said county should thereafter be on the first Mondays in May and September, to be in force from its passage; that said bill having passed the senate, was reported to the house of representatives, where it was amended; that said bill was sent to the senate (without having been read the third time, or the ayes and noes called, so far as is shown by the journal of the house of representatives) for their concurrence; and that the senate concurred in the amendment, and passed the bill; that said bill was signed by the speakers of the two houses and by the governor. A certified copy of the journals of both houses, having reference to the act in question, appears in the bill of exceptions.
O. C. SKINNER, Judge, at this May term, 1852, of the McDonough Circuit Court, overruled the motion, refused to quash the summons, and gave judgment for the plaintiff, to which proceedings the defendant excepted, and sued out this writ of error.
R. S. BLACKWELL, for plaintiff in error.
N. H. PURPLE and B. C. COOK, for defendant in error.
TREAT, C. J.
The constitution contains the following provisions: “Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings.” Art. 3, § 13. “On the final passage of all bills, the vote shall be by ayes and noes, and shall be entered on the journal; and no bill shall become a law...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ritchie v. Richards
...... Henderson . v. State , 94 Ala. 95, 10 So. 332; State v. Wright , 14 Ore. 365, 12 P. 708; Chicot Co. . v. Davies , 40 Ark. 200; Spangler v. Jacoby , 14 Ill. 297; Currie v. Southern. Pac. Co. , 21 Ore. 566, 28 P. 884; State v. Robinson , 20 Neb. 96, 29 N.W. 246; Osburn . v. ......
- Enochs v. State ex rel. Roberson
-
Rash v. Allen
...36 Fla. 154, 18 South. 834; State v. Hocker, 36 Fla. 358, 18 South. 767; Cohn v. Kingsley, supra; Spangler v. Jacoby, 14 Ill. 298, 58 Am. Dec. 571; McCulloch v. State, 11 Ind. 524; Koehler v. Hill, 60 Iowa, 543, 14 N. W. 738, 15 N. W. 609; Division of Howard County, 15 Kan. 194; Atty. Gen. ......
-
Cohn v. Kingsley
......It. is the evidence of the action of the House and by it the act. must be sustained or fall. ( Spangler v. Jacoby, 14. Ill. 297, 58 Am. Dec. 571, and note; Santa Clara Railroad Tax. Case, 9 Saw. 165, 18 F. 385; Hunt v. State, 22 Tex. App. 396, 3 ......