Poppers v. Meager

Appellate Court of Illinois

Poppers v. Meager

33 Ill. App. 19, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 438

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 17, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 Ill. App. 19 (Poppers v. Meager) 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

Poppers v. Meager, 33 Ill. App. 19, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 438 (Ill. Ct. App. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Gary, J.

Ho more shall the genial smile of the counsel for the appellant beam upon the bench or bar of Chicago. Tom Shirley is dead. His forty years of service in the courts of Cook county are ended in the grave.

June 25, 1888, the appellee filed in the Circuit Court the proper papers for a judgment by confession for rent due to her from the appellant, upon a lease from her to him, pursuant to a warrant of attorney contained in the lease. He made a motion to set aside the judgment, which was denied June 27, 1888. First, it is objected that the warrant is to confess not only a judgment for rent, but also upon a complaint in forcible detainer, and only a part of the power is executed. Ho argument or authority to support this objection is made or cited, and the validity of it is not self-evident. The practice of thus entering judgments for the rent is common, and has never been questioned. Second, that the power is to any attorney, and to no one by name, is answered by the cases Hall v. Jones, 32 Ill. 38, and Keith v. Kellogg, 97 Ill. 147. Third, the claims for unliquidated damages, which are urged as a set-off, are not connected with the demand for rent. Hawks v. Lauds, 3 Gilm. 227; DeForrest v. Oder, 42 Ill. 500; Kobison v. Hibhs, 48 Ill. 408; Hubbard v. Rogers, 64 Ill. 434; Evans v. Hughey, 76 Ill. 115. The last and what at first blush might seem a serious objection, is that when execution issued upon the judgment and was levied, and even when the motion was denied, the judgment had not been written up upon the records of the court. On a judgment by confession entered by the clerk in vacation, execution may not issue before the record of the judgment is complete. Ling v. King, 91 Ill. 571; hut in term1 time it may; Weigley v. Matson, 125 Ill. 64; Sec. 14, Act in relation to clerks, March 25, 1874; Schirmer v. People, 33 Ill. 276.

This appeal does not bring before this court the judgment itself, but only the order denying the motion to vacate it. Lake v. Cook, 15 Ill. 353; Frear v. Comm. N. Bk., 73 Ill. 473 ; Hall v. Hamilton, 74 Ill. 437. That motion was rightly decided.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gary, J.

Ho more shall the genial smile of the counsel for the appellant beam upon the bench or bar of Chicago. Tom Shirley is dead. His forty years of service in the courts of Cook county are ended in the grave.

June 25, 1888, the appellee filed in the Circuit Court the proper papers for a judgment by confession for rent due to her from the appellant, upon a lease from her to him, pursuant to a warrant of attorney contained in the lease. He made a motion to set aside the judgment, which was denied June 27, 1888. First, it is objected that the warrant is to confess not only a judgment for rent, but also upon a complaint in forcible detainer, and only a part of the power is executed. Ho argument or authority to support this objection is made or cited, and the validity of it is not self-evident. The practice of thus entering judgments for the rent is common, and has never been questioned. Second, that the power is to any attorney, and to no one by name, is answered by the cases Hall v. Jones, 32 Ill. 38, and Keith v. Kellogg, 97 Ill. 147. Third, the claims for unliquidated damages, which are urged as a set-off, are not connected with the demand for rent. Hawks v. Lauds, 3 Gilm. 227; DeForrest v. Oder, 42 Ill. 500; Kobison v. Hibhs, 48 Ill. 408; Hubbard v. Rogers, 64 Ill. 434; Evans v. Hughey, 76 Ill. 115. The last and what at first blush might seem a serious objection, is that when execution issued upon the judgment and was levied, and even when the motion was denied, the judgment had not been written up upon the records of the court. On a judgment by confession entered by the clerk in vacation, execution may not issue before the record of the judgment is complete. Ling v. King, 91 Ill. 571; hut in term1 time it may; Weigley v. Matson, 125 Ill. 64; Sec. 14, Act in relation to clerks, March 25, 1874; Schirmer v. People, 33 Ill. 276.

This appeal does not bring before this court the judgment itself, but only the order denying the motion to vacate it. Lake v. Cook, 15 Ill. 353; Frear v. Comm. N. Bk., 73 Ill. 473 ; Hall v. Hamilton, 74 Ill. 437. That motion was rightly decided.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Ill. App. 19, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poppers-v-meager-illappct-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack