Thompson v. Sutton
| Decision Date | 30 September 1869 |
| Citation | 51 Ill. 213,1869 WL 5305 |
| Parties | THOMAS Y. THOMPSONv.HENRY SUTTON. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Grundy county; the Hon. JOSIAH MCROBERTS, Judge, presiding.
The opinion of the court fully states the case.
Messrs. S. W. & T. B. HARRIS, for the appellant.
Messrs. OLIN & ARMSTRONG, for the appellee.
This was an action originally commenced before a justice of the peace in Grundy county, by Henry Sutton, against Thomas Y. Thompson, resulting in a judgment in favor of Thompson. The plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, in which court he obtained a judgment, to reverse which, the defendant appeals to this court.
It appears from the abstract, that plaintiff's demand before the justice was fifty dollars, for driving cattle.
The point made here by appellant is, that the claim before the justice was for the penalty under the statute respecting drovers, and the circuit court permitted the plaintiff to prove a case of trespass in driving away his bull. The defendant offered to prove, in the circuit court, that no claim of this kind was made before the justice, and no other claim than the statutory penalty, which the court disallowed and the defendant excepted.
The court, on behalf of the plaintiff, instructed the jury, that in case the plaintiff should not by the evidence bring himself within the statute which provides a penalty for driving off cattle, yet he might, in this suit, recover damages of the defendant for such driving off of his property, if the jury shall believe, from the evidence, that the defendant or those in his employment drove off the bull of the plaintiff, whether they intended or not to do so, if by such driving off the plaintiff sustained any damage, expense or loss, and the measure of damages is the expense and loss sustained by reason of such driving off; and further instructing them, it was immaterial, in the suit, what was claimed or proved in the justice's court, but that the suit was to be determined on the evidence in the circuit court.
On this state of case, appellant raises this question: can a plaintiff select and bring forward one demand and distinct cause of action before the justice, and being defeated on that, appeal to the circuit court, and then, for the first time, and without notice, bring forward another distinct cause of action, and thus throw the costs of the entire litigation upon the defendant. Appellant cites section 35 of the act respecting justices of the peace, Gross' Stat. 393, which provides, in all suits which shall be commenced before a justice of the peace, each party shall bring forward all his demands against the other, existing at the time of the commencement of the suit, which are of such a nature as to be consolidated, and which do not exceed one hundred dollars when consolidated; and on refusing or neglecting so to do, the same shall be forever barred from suing for any such debt or demand.
The inference appellant draws from this is, that he shall never be allowed to bring them forward again, and as we understand him, no part of the claim.
We have supposed the bar extended only to the claim he did not bring forward and incorporate in the suit, not the original claim--as for instance, when the claim consists of several items, the whole not exceeding one hundred dollars, a plaintiff suing for one of the items, is barred from suing thereafter to recover for any of the other items. He cannot split up his claim and bring several suits upon the different items. Lucas v. Le Compte, 42 Ill. 303.
There is no precise criterion by which to determine, in every case, the nature of the plaintiff's cause of action when suing before a justice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Montemy
...Court can only inquire into the merits between the parties: Vaughn v. Thompson, 15 Ill. 39; Swingley v. Haynes, 22 Ill. 214; Thompson v. Sutton, 51 Ill. 213; Allen v. Nichols, 68 Ill. 250; Zuel v. Bowen, 78 Ill. 234. The summons issued by the justice was the commencement of the suit, and no......
-
Gallagher v. Frorer
... ... Robinson, 4 Blackf. 479.No distress warrant was levied, giving the landlord such possession as would maintain trover: Mead v. Thompson, 78 Ill. 62; Watt v. Scofield, 76 Ill. 261.An officer before levy cannot maintain trover: Eisendrath v. Knauer, 64 Ill. 396; Hotchkiss v. McVicker, ... Sutton, 51 Ill. 213; Vaughn v. Thompson, 15 Ill. 39; Swingley v. Haynes, 22 Ill. 214; Powell v. Feeley, 49 Ill. 143; Pollock v. McClurken 42 Ill. 370 ... ...
-
Bulmer v. Worthing
...593; Tindall v. Meeker, 1 Scam. 137; Frye v. Tucker, 24 Ill. 181; Rev. Stat. 1877, Chap. 79, § 74; Webb v. Lasater, 4 Scam. 544; Thompson v. Sutton, 51 Ill. 213. Objections to the admission of testimony must be made in the court below: Gardner v. Eberhart, 82 Ill. 316; People v. Gray, 72 Il......
-
Wright v. Hatchett
...in any form of action of which the justice has jurisdiction, the cause will be proceeded with: Bliss v. Harris, 70 Ill. 343; Thompson v. Sutton, 51 Ill. 213. In such cases, the proceedings being ore tenus, it will be presumed a proper issue was formed and tried: Hennies v. The People, 70 Il......