Ryder v. Hulscher

Appellate Court of Illinois

Ryder v. Hulscher

40 Ill. App. 77, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 26

DecidedSeptember 11, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 40 Ill. App. 77 (Ryder v. Hulscher) 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

Ryder v. Hulscher, 40 Ill. App. 77, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 26 (Ill. Ct. App. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Phillips, P. J.

A suit to recover a penalty under Sec. 34, Chap. 50, R. S., may be brought in the name of the informer. The State has no interest in the recovery. The action should be brought in the name of the informer, or more properly, in the name of the informer for use of himself and the county. Higby v. The People, etc., 4 Scam. 165. It was error to dismiss the suit, because not brought in the name of the people. The motion by plaintiff for leave to amend so as to conform to the ruling of the court was properly denied, as it would have been error to have the suit in the name of the people as held in Higby’s case, supra. To refuse to permit an amendment substituting the people as plaintiffs was not error. For the error in dismissing the suit as adjudged by the Circuit Court, the judgment must 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

Phillips, P. J.

A suit to recover a penalty under Sec. 34, Chap. 50, R. S., may be brought in the name of the informer. The State has no interest in the recovery. The action should be brought in the name of the informer, or more properly, in the name of the informer for use of himself and the county. Higby v. The People, etc., 4 Scam. 165. It was error to dismiss the suit, because not brought in the name of the people. The motion by plaintiff for leave to amend so as to conform to the ruling of the court was properly denied, as it would have been error to have the suit in the name of the people as held in Higby’s case, supra. To refuse to permit an amendment substituting the people as plaintiffs was not error. For the error in dismissing the suit as adjudged by the Circuit Court, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 Ill. App. 77, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryder-v-hulscher-illappct-1891.