Davidson v. Bond

12 Ill. 84
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1850
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 12 Ill. 84 (Davidson v. Bond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davidson v. Bond, 12 Ill. 84 (Ill. 1850).

Opinion

Caton, J.

On the return day of the summons it was served

on all of the defendants. During the term to which the summons was returnable the appearance of four of the defendants was entered. At the same term a default was entered and judgment rendered against the four defendants whose appearance had been entered, and no notice taken of the other two defendants who had been served with process. This was unquestionably erroneous. At the common law, in action upon a joint contract or obligation, the judgment must be rendered against all or none of the defendants, and this has only been changed by our statute, by allowing the plaintiff to take judgment against a part of the defendants, who alone had been served with process. This case should have been continued until the next term, when all of the defendants might have been proceeded against.

Here there was an error, for which the defendants might, at any time within five years from the rendition of the judgment, bring the case to this Court, and have the judgment reversed. And while this is the case, it is not an open question in this Court, since the decisions in the cases of Teal v. Russell et al., 2 Scam., 319, and Jones v. Wright et al., 4 Scam., 388, that the plaintiffs may bring the record here, and rid themselves of a judgment, which while it presents a bar to their obtaining a regular one, still affords them no sufficient security.

Inasmuch however, as their intestate was chargeable with the error which renders the judgment defective, they must pay the costs of getting it reversed. Jones v. Wright et al., 4 Scam., 338.

Let the judgment be reversed at the cost of the plaintiffs, to be paid in due course of administration.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Handley v. Unarco Industries, Inc.
463 N.E.2d 1011 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1984)
Posner v. Wechter
276 Ill. App. 138 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1934)
Howell v. Anderson
170 Ill. App. 14 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1912)
Dailey v. City of Columbia
97 S.W. 954 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Williams v. Breitung
74 N.E. 1060 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1905)
Brown v. First Nat. Bank
132 F. 450 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)
Commissioners of Union Drainage District v. Commissioners of Highways
87 Ill. App. 93 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)
Stitt v. Kurtenbach
85 Ill. App. 38 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1899)
Snow v. Macfarlane
51 Ill. App. 448 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1893)
Ward v. Stanley
41 Ill. App. 417 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1891)
Kingsland v. Koeppe
137 Ill. 344 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1891)
Schweickhardt v. City of St. Louis
2 Mo. App. 571 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1876)
Hartman v. Belleville & O'fallon Railroad
64 Ill. 24 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1872)
Thayer, Aldrich & Co. v. Finley
36 Ill. 262 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1864)
Evans v. Gill
25 Ill. 116 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1860)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Ill. 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-v-bond-ill-1850.