Hippach v. First National Bank

Illinois Supreme Court

Hippach v. First National Bank

48 N.E. 482, 169 Ill. 515

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 1, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 48 N.E. 482 (Hippach v. First National Bank) 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

Hippach v. First National Bank, 48 N.E. 482, 169 Ill. 515 (Ill. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court:

The appellant insists a copy of the decree sued on was not filed with the declaration, nor ten days before the first day of the term, and for that reason urges it was error to enter judgment against him. The record in this court does not contain a bill of exceptions. A copy of the decree, if filed, would not have formed a part of the declaration. (Harlow v. Boswell, 15 Ill. 56; Stratton v. Henderson, 26 id. 68; Franey v. True, 26 id. 184.) If not a part of the pleading it was not a part of the record proper in the cause. A bill of exceptions was necessary to preserve it as a part of the record in this court. Garrity v. Lozano, 83 Ill. 597.

As the record filed by the appellant in this court fails to disclose that a copy of the decree was not filed, it is not apparent that error was committed in that respect. The presumption that the proceedings in the trial court were regular and valid must prevail.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court:

The appellant insists a copy of the decree sued on was not filed with the declaration, nor ten days before the first day of the term, and for that reason urges it was error to enter judgment against him. The record in this court does not contain a bill of exceptions. A copy of the decree, if filed, would not have formed a part of the declaration. (Harlow v. Boswell, 15 Ill. 56; Stratton v. Henderson, 26 id. 68; Franey v. True, 26 id. 184.) If not a part of the pleading it was not a part of the record proper in the cause. A bill of exceptions was necessary to preserve it as a part of the record in this court. Garrity v. Lozano, 83 Ill. 597.

As the record filed by the appellant in this court fails to disclose that a copy of the decree was not filed, it is not apparent that error was committed in that respect. The presumption that the proceedings in the trial court were regular and valid must prevail.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 N.E. 482, 169 Ill. 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hippach-v-first-national-bank-ill-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack