Cohen v. Burgess

Appellate Court of Illinois

Cohen v. Burgess

44 Ill. App. 206, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 566

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 19, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 Ill. App. 206 (Cohen v. Burgess) 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

Cohen v. Burgess, 44 Ill. App. 206, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 566 (Ill. Ct. App. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Gary, J.

June 17, 1891, a judgment by confession; the cognovit pursuant to a warrant of attorney, releasing errors, was entered in the Superior Court in favor of the appellee against the appellant. June 20, 1891, Cohen had leave to plead, the judgment to stand as security. He deposited in court $125, in order to obtain that relief. When the case came up for trial upon his plea of the general issue, the only defense, so far as the abstract shows, he had to offer was, that the note upon which the judgment was entered was not then due. The warrant was “ at any timé hereafter,” and therefore authorized the judgment, Towle v. Gonter, 5 Ill. App. 409; Chisholm v. McDonald, 30 Ill. App. 176. October 19, 1891, after the trial of the issue, the court entered a judgment that the former judgment stand, and for costs against Cohen, of proceedings after the original judgment. He complains that not only is this judgment against him, but his $125 is kept from him. He has not applied to have the judgment paid out of the money, and the residue returned, but by his appeal, has prevented the disposition of the money which the court otherwise doubtless would have made on the application of Burgess.

Irregularities are alleged as to the declaration and cognovit. Ho question as to them is before us. Hone was made below, and the appeal only brings up the question of whether, for any reason there assigned, the judgment ought to have been vacated. Anderson v. Studebacker, 37 Ill. App. 532.

- The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Gary, J.

June 17, 1891, a judgment by confession; the cognovit pursuant to a warrant of attorney, releasing errors, was entered in the Superior Court in favor of the appellee against the appellant. June 20, 1891, Cohen had leave to plead, the judgment to stand as security. He deposited in court $125, in order to obtain that relief. When the case came up for trial upon his plea of the general issue, the only defense, so far as the abstract shows, he had to offer was, that the note upon which the judgment was entered was not then due. The warrant was “ at any timé hereafter,” and therefore authorized the judgment, Towle v. Gonter, 5 Ill. App. 409; Chisholm v. McDonald, 30 Ill. App. 176. October 19, 1891, after the trial of the issue, the court entered a judgment that the former judgment stand, and for costs against Cohen, of proceedings after the original judgment. He complains that not only is this judgment against him, but his $125 is kept from him. He has not applied to have the judgment paid out of the money, and the residue returned, but by his appeal, has prevented the disposition of the money which the court otherwise doubtless would have made on the application of Burgess.

Irregularities are alleged as to the declaration and cognovit. Ho question as to them is before us. Hone was made below, and the appeal only brings up the question of whether, for any reason there assigned, the judgment ought to have been vacated. Anderson v. Studebacker, 37 Ill. App. 532.

- The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 Ill. App. 206, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-burgess-illappct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack