Rubin v. Raynor

Appellate Court of Illinois

Rubin v. Raynor

181 Ill. App. 403, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 269

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 24, 1913

DocketGen. No. 17,541

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 181 Ill. App. 403 (Rubin v. Raynor) 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

Rubin v. Raynor, 181 Ill. App. 403, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 269 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

Suit was brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error and one Tice, as codefendant, summons being returnable to the February term of court, the first day of the term being Monday, February 2, 1903. Service was had on Eaynor on January 30th, but no declaration was filed until March 24, 1903, the first day of the March term being March 3, 1903. The original declaration seems to have been lost. A copy was filed April 10,1907, and judgment rendered thereon against Eaynor and the codefendant Tice, jointly, on or about that date. No declaration having been filed ten days before the second term of court, namely the March term, 1903, the plaintiff in error was, under the provisions of section 18 (now 32), chapter 110, B. S., entitled to judgment as in the case of nonsuit. Tice pleaded to the declaration, but no default was taken as against Eaynor, and properly could not have been, the court having no right to enter any order other than one of nonsuit if that had been asked.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

Suit was brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error and one Tice, as codefendant, summons being returnable to the February term of court, the first day of the term being Monday, February 2, 1903. Service was had on Eaynor on January 30th, but no declaration was filed until March 24, 1903, the first day of the March term being March 3, 1903. The original declaration seems to have been lost. A copy was filed April 10,1907, and judgment rendered thereon against Eaynor and the codefendant Tice, jointly, on or about that date. No declaration having been filed ten days before the second term of court, namely the March term, 1903, the plaintiff in error was, under the provisions of section 18 (now 32), chapter 110, B. S., entitled to judgment as in the case of nonsuit. Tice pleaded to the declaration, but no default was taken as against Eaynor, and properly could not have been, the court having no right to enter any order other than one of nonsuit if that had been asked.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 Ill. App. 403, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-raynor-illappct-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack