Hawthorn v. Cooper

22 Ill. 225
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1859
StatusPublished

This text of 22 Ill. 225 (Hawthorn v. Cooper) 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
Hawthorn v. Cooper, 22 Ill. 225 (Ill. 1859).

Opinion

Walker, J.

The defendant below entered a motion for a continuance, because an account was not filed under the common counts, ten days before the commencement of the term. The court overruled his motion, which is assigned for error. This was a failure to comply with the express requirements of the statute, and by its terms the defendant below was entitled to a continuance. The plaintiffs below, however, might have avoided a continuance by filing a stipulation that they would rely alone on the note sued on as evidence on the trial, or they might have entered a nolle prosequi to the common counts, which would have produced the same result. But having failed to do either, it was error to overrule the motion for a continuance, for which 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Ill. 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawthorn-v-cooper-ill-1859.