Stout v. Cook
| Decision Date | 30 September 1868 |
| Citation | 47 Ill. 530,1868 WL 5035 |
| Parties | JOSEPH STOUT et al.v.ISAAC COOK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago.
This was a bill in chancery, originally filed in the Circuit Court of LaSalle county, by the appellee, Isaac Cook, against the appellees, Joseph Stout, Mary E. Stout, James Cotton and Henry G. Cotton, praying that a sheriff's deed to Henry G. Cotton, for certain premises, be set aside. The court rendered a decree setting aside such deed, and appointed a special master to take testimony in relation to the waste committed on the premises. From this decree an appeal was prosecuted to this court, and the decree affirmed. Testimony was then taken in relation to the waste done, and subsequently the case was taken, by a change of venue, to the Superior Court of Chicago. In this court, on final hearing, a decree was rendered in favor of complainant, for $2,706.47; to reverse which the case is again brought to this court by appeal.
Mr. J. D. CATON, for the appellant.
Mr. W. T. BURGESS, for the appellees.
This case was referred to a master, to take an account of rents and waste, and the depositions of William and Frank Collison, Robert McDonald and John Hise were taken on behalf of the complainant, and the case then adjourned to the 9th of October, when the defendant was to produce his witnesses. On that day the parties again appeared, by their solicitors, and it was found that the depositions already taken had been mislaid or accidentally destroyed. The solicitor for the defendants then stated, as there was no evidence to be controverted, he should offer none, whereupon the solicitor of complainant insisted upon proving the contents of the depositions already taken. The defendant's solicitor objected to this and withdrew, and the master took the depositions of three witnesses, proving the contents of the missing depositions. After the master's report came in, the defendant moved to suppress these depositions, and the court made an order which, though not very explicit in its terms, we must regard as suppressing them, and directed a further reference to the master, for the purpose of retaking the lost depositions, or, if that could not be done, in consequence of the death or absence of the witnesses, of proving their contents. On this reference three of the witnesses whose depositions had been lost, were re-examined, and their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estill v. Citizens' & Southern Bank
...57 S.E. 315; Brown v. McBride, 129 Ga. 92, 58 S.E. 702. A witness on the former trial who has since become insane is inaccessible. Stout v. Cook, 47 Ill. 530; Howard v. Patrick, 38 Mich. 795; Whitaker March, 62 N.H. 477; Berney v. Mitchell, 34 N. J. Law, 337; Wells v. Drayton, 1 Nott & McC.......
-
Weber v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
...Casey (Pa.) 375; Emig v. Diehl, 26 P. F. Smith (Pa.) 359; see also Harriman v. Brown, 35 Va. 697, 8 Leigh 697. It was also held, in Cook v. Stout, 47 Ill. 530, where a witness had died or become insane after his evidence had been taken, it is permissible to prove, as between the same partie......
-
Weber v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
...§ 163; Jack v. Woods, 29 Pa. 375;Emig v. Diehl, 76 Pa. 359. See, also, Harriman v. Brown, 8 Leigh (Va.) 697. It was also held in Stout v. Cook, 47 Ill. 530, that where a witness had died or become insane after his evidence had been taken it is permissible to prove, as between the same parti......
-
State v. Rose
... ... 496; Taylor on ... Evid., secs. 434-446; Clinton v. Ettis, 20 Ark. 216; ... Glassler v. Burlington, 47 Iowa 300; Cook v ... Stout, 47 Ill. 530. (4) The court erred in defining the ... law of self-defence. The right of self-defence does not ... depend upon an ... ...