Winchester v. Mary E. Grosvenor.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1868 |
| Citation | 1868 WL 5161,48 Ill. 515 |
| Parties | SARAH D. WINCHESTERv.MARY E. GROSVENOR. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.
The facts in this case are stated in the original opinion published in 44 Ill. 425, and this opinion is rendered upon a petition for a rehearing.
Mr. GEORGE F. HARDING and Mr. FRANK H. GUION, for the appellant.
Messrs. BARKER & TULEY, for the appellee.
This cause was before us at the April term, 1867, of this court; the judgment of the court below was then reversed and the cause remanded, with leave to appellee to remit three hundred dollars and take judgment for the balance. At this term, being the first which has occurred since filing the opinion in the case, appellant has filed a petition for a rehearing. After a careful examination of the record we have arrived at the same conclusion we then announced, on the questions of error in the record; still being of the opinion that error existed as indicated in the opinion, we adhere to the views we there expressed. But when we come to examine the affidavit upon which the writ of attachment was based, and to which we did not turn our attention when we then decided the case, and after a more careful examination of the evidence in connection with the petition for a rehearing, we have arrived at the conclusion that we acted inadvertently in granting leave to enter the remittitur and to take judgment for the balance of the verdict, but should have remanded the cause for a new trial. We refrain from a discussion of the evidence, as the case will go before another jury; hence, we simply announce the conclusion at which we have arrived. We rarely remand a cause with specific directions to enter judgment, except where the evidence is clear and satisfactory; and upon a further examination of the testimony in this case, we do not find it of that clear and satisfactory character that would warrant such an order. Having granted a rehearing, the judgment heretofore entered in this court will be so far modified as to stand as a judgment of reversal and the cause remanded for further proceedings, and without leave to take judgment upon entering a remittitur.
After the judgment was entered in this court, appellee procured a writ of procedendo, and had the cause docketed in the court below, on the 14th day of January, 1868, and thereupon moved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Murray
...the supreme court's mandate is erroneous, the circuit court has no discretion but to enter an order conforming to the mandate (Winchester, 48 Ill. at 516-17) and (2) the supreme court reverses or vacates the judgment of the circuit court and remands to the circuit court with specific direct......
-
People ex rel. Brown v. Gibbons
...act, the court below has no power to do anything but to carry out the specific directions.’ Chickering v. Failes, 29 Ill. 294;Winchester v. Grosvenor, 48 Ill. 515;Hollowbush v. McConnel, 12 Ill. 203;Green v. City of Springfield, 130 Ill. 515, 22 N. E. 602;Mix v. People, 122 Ill. 641, 14 N. ......
-
Boggs v. Willard
...act, the court below has no power to do any thing but carry out the specific directions. Chickering v. Failes, 29 Ill. 294; Winchester v. Grosvenor, 48 Ill. 515; Hollowbush v. McConnel, 12 Ill. 203. The statute (R. S. 1845, p. 420,) empowers this court to give final judgment and issue execu......