Trzebiatowski v. Jerome

Illinois Supreme Court

Trzebiatowski v. Jerome

179 N.E.2d 622, 24 Ill. 2d 24, 1962 Ill. LEXIS 546

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 23, 1962

Docket36605

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 179 N.E.2d 622 (Trzebiatowski v. Jerome) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trzebiatowski v. Jerome, 179 N.E.2d 622, 24 Ill. 2d 24, 1962 Ill. LEXIS 546 (Ill. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Daily

delivered the opinion of the court:

In a prior appeal in this cause we reversed a decree for the plaintiff, Anna M. Trzebiatowski, and remanded the cause to the circuit court of Du Page County with directions that additional evidence be heard. (Trzebiatowski v. Jerome, 19 Ill.2d 30.) Upon remandment, however, the chancellor who had heard the evidence in the original proceeding granted a change of venue on the ground of prejudice, an action which has not been challenged and which had the inevitable effect of requiring a trial de novo. The matter was assigned to a new judge who, over proper and strenuous objection by defendant, permitted plaintiff to introduce into evidence the transcript of the proceedings at the original hearing even though there was no showing plaintiff’s witnesses were not available on the second trial. Thereafter, plaintiff rested, and the defendant introduced additional testimony and evidence; after which a decree was again entered for the plaintiff. A freehold being involved, defendant has appealed directly to this court.

Under the circumstances reflected in the record it was error for the second chancellor to admit the transcript of the first proceeding into evidence and to consider it as a basis of decision. The full hearing contemplated by due process of law contemplates that all of the evidence should be submitted before a single judge or master who may see the witnesses, weigh their testimony and determine their credibility. (People ex rel. Reiter v. Lupe, 405 Ill. 66; Mills v. Ehler, 407 Ill. 602; Buchsbaum & Co. v. Federal Trade Com. (7th cir.) 153 F.2d 85; Smith v. Dental Products Co. (7th cir.) 168 F.2d 516.) It was the clear duty of the chancellor here to conduct a trial de novo.

Accordingly, the decree of the circuit court of Du Page County is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to have a trial de novo.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

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

Mr. Justice Daily

delivered the opinion of the court:

In a prior appeal in this cause we reversed a decree for the plaintiff, Anna M. Trzebiatowski, and remanded the cause to the circuit court of Du Page County with directions that additional evidence be heard. (Trzebiatowski v. Jerome, 19 Ill.2d 30.) Upon remandment, however, the chancellor who had heard the evidence in the original proceeding granted a change of venue on the ground of prejudice, an action which has not been challenged and which had the inevitable effect of requiring a trial de novo. The matter was assigned to a new judge who, over proper and strenuous objection by defendant, permitted plaintiff to introduce into evidence the transcript of the proceedings at the original hearing even though there was no showing plaintiff’s witnesses were not available on the second trial. Thereafter, plaintiff rested, and the defendant introduced additional testimony and evidence; after which a decree was again entered for the plaintiff. A freehold being involved, defendant has appealed directly to this court.

Under the circumstances reflected in the record it was error for the second chancellor to admit the transcript of the first proceeding into evidence and to consider it as a basis of decision. The full hearing contemplated by due process of law contemplates that all of the evidence should be submitted before a single judge or master who may see the witnesses, weigh their testimony and determine their credibility. (People ex rel. Reiter v. Lupe, 405 Ill. 66; Mills v. Ehler, 407 Ill. 602; Buchsbaum & Co. v. Federal Trade Com. (7th cir.) 153 F.2d 85; Smith v. Dental Products Co. (7th cir.) 168 F.2d 516.) It was the clear duty of the chancellor here to conduct a trial de novo.

Accordingly, the decree of the circuit court of Du Page County is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to have a trial de novo.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 N.E.2d 622, 24 Ill. 2d 24, 1962 Ill. LEXIS 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trzebiatowski-v-jerome-ill-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack