Taylor v. Richman

Appellate Court of Illinois

Taylor v. Richman

87 Ill. App. 419, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 400

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedFebruary 27, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 87 Ill. App. 419 (Taylor v. Richman) 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

Taylor v. Richman, 87 Ill. App. 419, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 400 (Ill. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Harker

delivered the opinion of the court.

At the February term, 1897, of the Circuit Court of Mason County, the defendant in error brought suit against the plaintiffs in error to recover interest due on a promissory note for $2,524, dated May 14, 1894, and due in six years. The note bore interest at the rate of seven per cent, payable annually, and at the time suit was brought there was two years’ interest due, amounting to $353.36. The damages were laid in the declaration at $500. The case was continued for service on defendants not served until the August term, 1897, at which time another year’s interest had become due. No pleas being filed, judgment by default was entered against the plaintiffs in error for $568.76, being for three years’ interest, and $68.76 in excess of the ad damnum in the declaration.

The judgment is erroneous, for two reasons: It exceeds the ad damvnum in the declaration. It is reversible error to enter judgment for a greater amount than is claimed in the plaintiffs’ declaration. Hichins v. Lyon, 35 Ill. 150; Altes v. Hinckler et al., 36 Ill. 275; Kelly v. National Bank, etc., 64 Ill. 541.

It includes a year’s interest that was not due at the time suit was commenced. It is well settled that a party can not recover for money not due at the time of instituting suit.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

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

Mr. Justice Harker

delivered the opinion of the court.

At the February term, 1897, of the Circuit Court of Mason County, the defendant in error brought suit against the plaintiffs in error to recover interest due on a promissory note for $2,524, dated May 14, 1894, and due in six years. The note bore interest at the rate of seven per cent, payable annually, and at the time suit was brought there was two years’ interest due, amounting to $353.36. The damages were laid in the declaration at $500. The case was continued for service on defendants not served until the August term, 1897, at which time another year’s interest had become due. No pleas being filed, judgment by default was entered against the plaintiffs in error for $568.76, being for three years’ interest, and $68.76 in excess of the ad damnum in the declaration.

The judgment is erroneous, for two reasons: It exceeds the ad damvnum in the declaration. It is reversible error to enter judgment for a greater amount than is claimed in the plaintiffs’ declaration. Hichins v. Lyon, 35 Ill. 150; Altes v. Hinckler et al., 36 Ill. 275; Kelly v. National Bank, etc., 64 Ill. 541.

It includes a year’s interest that was not due at the time suit was commenced. It is well settled that a party can not recover for money not due at the time of instituting suit.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 Ill. App. 419, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-richman-illappct-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack