Roe v. Hurlburt

Illinois Supreme Court

Roe v. Hurlburt

24 Ill. 119

DecidedApril 15, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Ill. 119 (Roe v. Hurlburt) 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

Roe v. Hurlburt, 24 Ill. 119 (Ill. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Catón, C. J.

This was an appeal from the County Court to the Common Pleas, where a motion was made for a change of venue, which was never decided. While that motion was still pending, the papers and a transcript of the record were by some means transferred to the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court ordered the cause to be placed upon the docket, called and defaulted the appellant, and dismissed the appeal. In this the court erred. It had acquired no jurisdiction of the cause, which was still pending in the Common Pleas, on the motion for a change of venue. The papers should have been sent back to the Common Pleas. This proceeding was, nor doubt, the result of inadvertence, but it was none the less erroneous.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded; with directions to return the papers to the Common Pleas, and to strike the cause from the docket of the Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed.

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

Catón, C. J.

This was an appeal from the County Court to the Common Pleas, where a motion was made for a change of venue, which was never decided. While that motion was still pending, the papers and a transcript of the record were by some means transferred to the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court ordered the cause to be placed upon the docket, called and defaulted the appellant, and dismissed the appeal. In this the court erred. It had acquired no jurisdiction of the cause, which was still pending in the Common Pleas, on the motion for a change of venue. The papers should have been sent back to the Common Pleas. This proceeding was, nor doubt, the result of inadvertence, but it was none the less erroneous.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded; with directions to return the papers to the Common Pleas, and to strike the cause from the docket of the Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Ill. 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roe-v-hurlburt-ill-1860.