Weber Chimney Co. v. Johnson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Weber Chimney Co. v. Johnson

205 Ill. App. 348

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 16, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,842

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 205 Ill. App. 348 (Weber Chimney Co. v. Johnson) 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

Weber Chimney Co. v. Johnson, 205 Ill. App. 348 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court,

2. Attachment, § 3*—when act construed strictly. An attachment is an extraordinary remedy, and the act is strictly construed against the party seeking to enforce its drastic provisions. 3. Attachment—when grounds of must be strictly proven. There are no presumptions in favor of plaintiffs in attachment suits; the grounds of attachment must be strictly proven. 4. Attachment—residence as question of fact. The question of residence in an attachment suit is one of fact. 5. Domicile, § 4*—what considered in determining residence. The question of residence is largely a matter of intent. 6. Appeal and error, § 1500*—when exactitude in rulings of court are not imperative. Where the merits of the controversy are strongly in favor of the defendant, exactitude in the rulings of the court in procedure or on instructions are not imperative.

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

Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court,

2. Attachment, § 3*—when act construed strictly. An attachment is an extraordinary remedy, and the act is strictly construed against the party seeking to enforce its drastic provisions. 3. Attachment—when grounds of must be strictly proven. There are no presumptions in favor of plaintiffs in attachment suits; the grounds of attachment must be strictly proven. 4. Attachment—residence as question of fact. The question of residence in an attachment suit is one of fact. 5. Domicile, § 4*—what considered in determining residence. The question of residence is largely a matter of intent. 6. Appeal and error, § 1500*—when exactitude in rulings of court are not imperative. Where the merits of the controversy are strongly in favor of the defendant, exactitude in the rulings of the court in procedure or on instructions are not imperative.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Ill. App. 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-chimney-co-v-johnson-illappct-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack