Weigley v. Matson

• Decision Date: 09 May 1888
• Citation: 16 N.E. 881,125 Ill. 64
• Parties: WEIGLEY v. MATSON et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

125 Ill. 64

16 N.E. 881

WEIGLEY

v.MATSON et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 9, 1888.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Suit by Frank S. Weigley against Canute R. Matson, sheriff, Sidney Guy Sea, and others. A demurrer to the bill was sustained by the circuit court of Cook county, and the bill dismissed. Complainant appealed to the appellate court, which affirmed the decree, and complaint appeals to this court.

Weigley, Bulkley & Gray, for appellant.

Flower, Remy & Holstein, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion of the appellate court for the First district in this case is as follows: ‘BAILEY, J. The complainant having obtained a judgment against one Sea, and having levied his execution upon the property of his debtor, seeks by his bill to have certain pror judgments and executions against the same debtor, and in favor of the other creditors, vacated and declared null and void, so as to give priority to the complainant's execution. The judgments attacked were entered by confession, and no claim is made that the indebtedness for which they were entered was not justly and in good faith due, nor are there any allegations of fraud or collusion. The claim to relief is based solely upon certain alleged irregularities on the entry of said judgments. The bill admits that said judgments purport to have been entered in open court in term-time, but it is alleged that in fact the branch of said court presided over by the judge before whom said judgments purport to have been entered was not in session on that day, and had not been opened for that term; that the declarations and cognovits were presented to the judge out of court; that he there indorsed thereon directions to enter judgments; and that said papers, with such indorsements, being filed with the clerk, said judgments were entered by him. It is the settled rule of law that the record of a court, showing a judgment by confession in open court, imports verity, and cannot be contradicted by parol evidence. Roche v. Beldam, 119 Ill. 320, 10 N. E. Rep. 191. The record of such judgment is the only proper evidence of itself, and is conclusive evidence of the fact of the rendition of the judgment, and of all the legal consequences resulting from that fact, both as against the parties to the judgment, and all others whose interests may be affected thereby. Koren v. Roemheld, 7 Bradw. 646;Richardson v. Beldam, 18 Bradw. 527;Jasper v. Schlesinger, 22 Bradw. 637. The complainant then, by admitting that the...