Humphreys, Newton & Co. v. Swain

Appellate Court of Illinois

Humphreys, Newton & Co. v. Swain

21 Ill. App. 232, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 621

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedAugust 26, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 Ill. App. 232 (Humphreys, Newton & Co. v. Swain) 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

Humphreys, Newton & Co. v. Swain, 21 Ill. App. 232, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 621 (Ill. Ct. App. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Wall, J.

The Circuit Court declined to consider the testimony offered by appellants tending to show'that the execution was issued by the clerk before the judgment was actually entered up. It is contended by appellee that such proof is not competent because its effect is to ‘impeach a record which imports verity. It is conceded that an execution issued before the entry of judgment is void, may be questioned collaterally, and a subsequent entry will not validate it. Ling v. King, 91 Ill. 571; Cummins v. Holmes, 109 Ill. 15.

It was expressly held in Baker v. Barber, 16 Ill. App. 621, that parol evidence may be heard to prove that the execution was issued and in the hands of the Sheriff before the judg-| ment was in fact written up, although upon the same day, and that this does not contradict the record. We are disposed to adhere to this ruling.

The judgment of the Circuit Court will therefore be re- . versed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Wall, J.

The Circuit Court declined to consider the testimony offered by appellants tending to show'that the execution was issued by the clerk before the judgment was actually entered up. It is contended by appellee that such proof is not competent because its effect is to ‘impeach a record which imports verity. It is conceded that an execution issued before the entry of judgment is void, may be questioned collaterally, and a subsequent entry will not validate it. Ling v. King, 91 Ill. 571; Cummins v. Holmes, 109 Ill. 15.

It was expressly held in Baker v. Barber, 16 Ill. App. 621, that parol evidence may be heard to prove that the execution was issued and in the hands of the Sheriff before the judg-| ment was in fact written up, although upon the same day, and that this does not contradict the record. We are disposed to adhere to this ruling.

The judgment of the Circuit Court will therefore be re- . versed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Ill. App. 232, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphreys-newton-co-v-swain-illappct-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack