Garfield v. Douglass

22 Ill. 100
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 22 Ill. 100 (Garfield v. Douglass) 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
Garfield v. Douglass, 22 Ill. 100 (Ill. 1859).

Opinion

Caton, C. J.

The entry upon the justice’s docket was a judgment in bar ; and the policy of the law forbids that parol proof should be admitted to show, that the justice originally entered a judgment of non-suit and afterwards changed it, to a judgment in bar. The record or entry of the justice, is higher and more trust-worthy than any parol evidence can be. If one record is open to be questioned by parol evidence then another must be, and all security and confidence in the stability of records are gone. If the justice corruptly, or from improper motives, changed the original entry made by him, he may be prosecuted both civilly and criminally, but the record must stand as the solemn truth, attesting beyond controversy what the judgment was, which the justice pronounced.

This is not like the case supposed, of an alteration made by another. That would be a forgery and not a record at all, and might be shown as well of a record in this court, as of that. The parol evidence was improperly admitted; for which reason, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Huendling v. Jensen
168 N.W.2d 745 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1969)
Stift v. Lynch
267 F.2d 237 (Seventh Circuit, 1959)
People v. Leviton
64 N.E.2d 195 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1945)
Karnes v. Keck
11 F. Supp. 577 (E.D. Illinois, 1935)
Rothschild Bros. Hat Co. v. Rolnick Bros.
26 S.W.2d 430 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
In Re Application of Harron
217 P. 728 (California Supreme Court, 1923)
Grossman v. Davis
117 Ill. App. 354 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1904)
Pfeiffer v. McCullough
115 Ill. App. 251 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1904)
Reddish v. Shaw
111 Ill. App. 337 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)
Hamill v. Ferrier
8 Colo. App. 266 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1896)
Parsons v. State
24 S.E. 845 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1895)
Saterlee v. Hickman
38 Ill. App. 139 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1890)
Payne v. Taylor
34 Ill. App. 491 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1890)
Thatcher v. Maack
7 Ill. App. 635 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1881)
Koren v. Roemheld
7 Ill. App. 646 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1881)
Haven v. Green
26 Ill. 252 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Ill. 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garfield-v-douglass-ill-1859.