Hunt v. Tinkham
21 Ill. 639
Opinion
The court properly overruled the motion to change the venue. No notice of the motion was given, and the statute positively requires a notice. It is a misapprehension to say that here no notice could have been given. It is certain that at least one day’s notice, could have been given, for the affidavit is made the day before the motion, and there is no excuse shown why notice was not given as the statute required.
The judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hunt v. Tinkham, 21 Ill. 639 (Ill. 1859).
21 Ill. 639 (Hunt v. Tinkham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People Ex Rel. Romani v. Meyering
186 N.E. 150 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1933)
Roll v. Springfield Consolidated Railway Co.
225 Ill. App. 411 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1922)
Miller v. Pence
23 N.E. 1030 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1890)
Warner v. Kelley
5 Ill. App. 559 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1880)
Hall v. Mills
5 Ill. App. 495 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1879)
Utley v. Burns
70 Ill. 162 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1873)
Marble v. Bonhotel
35 Ill. 240 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1864)