Stuhl v. Shipp

44 Ill. 133
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1867·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The case of Hinds v. Hopkins, 28 Ill. 351, was so far modified in Rising v. Brainard, 36 Ill. 80, as to render it necessary to apply to the court below to set aside a judgment by confession, and to show some equitable reason therefor, before this court will reverse on the ground that the power of attorney was more than a year and a day old, or its execution not duly proven. This court also held in Iglehart v. Morris, 34 Ill. 503, that when the judgment was within the ad damnum laid in the declaration, it would not be reversed because it might appear to be for an amount greater than the sum due upon the note, which was the basis of the confession, no application having been made in the court below to correct the error. On the authority of these cases this judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Stuhl v. Shipp, 44 Ill. 133 (Ill. 1867).

44 Ill. 133 (Stuhl v. Shipp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Halfhill v. Malick
129 N.W. 1086 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1911)
Seaver v. Siegel
54 Ill. App. 632 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1894)
Alldritt v. First National Bank
22 Ill. App. 24 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1886)
Stein, Block & Co. v. Good
16 Ill. App. 516 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1885)