Schmidt v. Bauer

Appellate Court of Illinois

Schmidt v. Bauer

33 Ill. App. 92, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 321

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 8, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 Ill. App. 92 (Schmidt v. Bauer) 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

Schmidt v. Bauer, 33 Ill. App. 92, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 321 (Ill. Ct. App. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Moran, J.

This writ of error brings up the record of a judgment entered in term by confession upon a warrant of attorney. It is contended that the warrant of attorney was joint, and did not authorize the confession of judgment against the plaintiff in error alone, and that the note introduced in evidence was not the same as the one declared on.

There is no bill of exceptions, and we have no means of knowing what evidence was introduced, but must presume that the evidence warranted the judgment which is shown by the record, and which is valid on its face. There is a copy of a note and warrant of attorney copied into the transcript but we can not regard it as in the case, because not made a part of the record by the bill of exceptions. When a judgment by confession is entered in vacation before the clerk, the warrant of attorney becomes a part of the record by being filed, and no bill of exceptions is necessary; but when the judgment is entered in term time, it will become a part of the record only by being made so by a bill of exceptions. Waterman v. Caton, 55 Ill. 94. There is nothing before us which affects the validity of the judgment, and the same will therefore be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Gary, J., takes no part in deciding this case in this court.

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

Moran, J.

This writ of error brings up the record of a judgment entered in term by confession upon a warrant of attorney. It is contended that the warrant of attorney was joint, and did not authorize the confession of judgment against the plaintiff in error alone, and that the note introduced in evidence was not the same as the one declared on.

There is no bill of exceptions, and we have no means of knowing what evidence was introduced, but must presume that the evidence warranted the judgment which is shown by the record, and which is valid on its face. There is a copy of a note and warrant of attorney copied into the transcript but we can not regard it as in the case, because not made a part of the record by the bill of exceptions. When a judgment by confession is entered in vacation before the clerk, the warrant of attorney becomes a part of the record by being filed, and no bill of exceptions is necessary; but when the judgment is entered in term time, it will become a part of the record only by being made so by a bill of exceptions. Waterman v. Caton, 55 Ill. 94. There is nothing before us which affects the validity of the judgment, and the same will therefore be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Gary, J., takes no part in deciding this case in this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Ill. App. 92, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-bauer-illappct-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack