Cahill v. McGrath

Appellate Court of Illinois

Cahill v. McGrath

67 Ill. App. 103, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 22

DecidedNovember 30, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 67 Ill. App. 103 (Cahill v. McGrath) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cahill v. McGrath, 67 Ill. App. 103, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 22 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The entry in the docket of the justice has none of the elements of a confession of judgment. For a defendant to acknowledge before a justice of the peace, or other court, that he is indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum, is not to confess or consent to judgment.

A judgment is always the result of a decision by a court, and is entered against a party nolens volens, or because he consents to—confesses—judgment.

There is a manifest and wide distinction between confessing an indebtedness and confessing judgment. Goddard v. Fischer, 23 Ill. App. 365; Campbell v. Randolph, 13 Ill. 313; Elliott v. Daiber, 42 Ill. 467.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI