Pratt v. Grimes

35 Ill. 164
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1864
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 35 Ill. 164 (Pratt v. Grimes) 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
Pratt v. Grimes, 35 Ill. 164 (Ill. 1864).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Beckwith

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This suit was commenced on the 2d day of July, 1852, but no declaration was filed until March 26th, 1859. The statute provides : “if no declaration shall be filed ten days before the second term of the court, the defendant shall be entitled to a judgment as in case of a nonsuit.” Scates’ Comp. 253. Unless the defendant had, in some manner, waived the right secured to him by this provision of the statute, he was entitled to the judgment so provided.

Undoubtedly, the right is one which may be waived, but we think a party should, at least, have an opportunity to be heard before he is to be considered as having waived that right.

Eleven days after the declaration was filed, and on the first day of the next term thereafter, a judgment was rendered against the defendant by default, without taking any rule requiring him to plead, and without any notice to him. The record shows no waiver of the defendant’s right to have the suit dismissed. We think it was an error in disregarding the condition of the record as it then stood, in entering a judgment by default without a rule and service of it requiring the defendant to plead.

He was not, under the circumstances, in default, and he should have been placed in that situation before a judgment was rendered against him by reason of it. Ordinarily, a party who, without any rule, fails to plead according to the practice of the court, is in default; but a party who is not required to plead, cannot justly be said to be in default for not so doing.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Staley v. Illinois Threshermen's Mutual Insurance
246 Ill. App. 279 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1927)
Dahlin v. Maytag Co.
238 Ill. App. 85 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1925)
West Frankfort Building & Loan Ass'n v. Muir
237 Ill. App. 122 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1925)
Garnsey v. Schwartz
154 Ill. App. 154 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1910)
Donnelly v. Chicago City Railway Co.
124 Ill. App. 18 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1905)
Gilbert v. American Trust & Savings Bank
118 Ill. App. 678 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1905)
Fish v. Regez
46 Ill. App. 428 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1892)
Waidner v. Pauly
30 N.E. 1025 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1892)
Maple v. Havenhill
37 Ill. App. 311 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1890)
Press v. Ridgway Refrigerator Manufacturing Co.
37 Ill. App. 269 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1890)
Moody v. Thomas
79 Ill. 274 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1875)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 Ill. 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-v-grimes-ill-1864.