Davies v. Apperson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Davies v. Apperson

146 Ill. App. 348, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 361

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 26, 1909

DocketGen. No. 14,297

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 146 Ill. App. 348 (Davies v. Apperson) 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

Davies v. Apperson, 146 Ill. App. 348, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 361 (Ill. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit in attachment was brought before a justice of the peace and judgment was recovered by the plaintiff against the defendant for $63 and costs. The defendant Apperson perfected an appeal to the Superior Court. On November 6, 1907, the case having been reached on the call of the calendar, was called for trial, and on motion of the plaintiff’s attorney it was ordered that the case be submitted to the court for trial without a jury; and thereupon the evidence was heard by the court which found the issues in assumpsit and in the attachment for the plaintiff and assessed the plaintiff’s damages at $75.64 and costs and entered judgment on the finding, to reverse which judgment this proceeding in error was prosecuted.

There were in contemplation of law such pleas of the defendant on file as were necessary to present the defense of the defendant. The record shows no waiver of a jury by the defendant. There was therefore no warrant for the motion of plaintiff’s attorney to submit the cause to the court without a jury for trial, and no warrant for the order of court to that effect, and it was substantial error requiring a reversal of the judgment. Barnett v. Craig, 38 Ill. App. 96.

The final judgment of the court included in the amount named by it costs which had accrued to the amount of $6.50, which would have been carried by the judgment if they had not been included in the amount named. There is therefore a double judgment for that amount in the judgment rendered.

For the errors indicated the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit in attachment was brought before a justice of the peace and judgment was recovered by the plaintiff against the defendant for $63 and costs. The defendant Apperson perfected an appeal to the Superior Court. On November 6, 1907, the case having been reached on the call of the calendar, was called for trial, and on motion of the plaintiff’s attorney it was ordered that the case be submitted to the court for trial without a jury; and thereupon the evidence was heard by the court which found the issues in assumpsit and in the attachment for the plaintiff and assessed the plaintiff’s damages at $75.64 and costs and entered judgment on the finding, to reverse which judgment this proceeding in error was prosecuted.

There were in contemplation of law such pleas of the defendant on file as were necessary to present the defense of the defendant. The record shows no waiver of a jury by the defendant. There was therefore no warrant for the motion of plaintiff’s attorney to submit the cause to the court without a jury for trial, and no warrant for the order of court to that effect, and it was substantial error requiring a reversal of the judgment. Barnett v. Craig, 38 Ill. App. 96.

The final judgment of the court included in the amount named by it costs which had accrued to the amount of $6.50, which would have been carried by the judgment if they had not been included in the amount named. There is therefore a double judgment for that amount in the judgment rendered.

For the errors indicated the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 Ill. App. 348, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davies-v-apperson-illappct-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack