Rees v. Eames
Illinois Supreme Court
The declaration in this case was as follows : For that, whereas, the said James Andrew, in his lifetime, in the year 1855, was sheriff in and for the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, and so being such sheriff, and while such sheriff, there came into his hands as such sheriff, to be executed, a certain fieri facias or execution, wherein one Thomas J. Hunt was plaintiff and the said James H. Eames and John A. Patmor, impleaded with William Carroll, were defendants,…
Read the full summary
The declaration in this case was as follows : For that, whereas, the said James Andrew, in his lifetime, in the year 1855, was sheriff in and for the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, and so being such sheriff, and while such sheriff, there came into his hands as such sheriff, to be executed, a certain fieri facias or execution, wherein one Thomas J. Hunt was plaintiff and the said James H. Eames and John A. Patmor, impleaded with William Carroll, were defendants, and which said writ was duly issued out of the clerk’s office of the Circuit Court of the county of Kane, and State of…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
The declaration in this case shows that, by accident, the execution was lost while in the sheriff’s hands, and before the return day; that, before the return day, he called on the defendants in execution and demanded- payment, which they promised but refused to make ; that, in consequence of the loss of the execution, he was unable to return it, according to the exigency of the writ, and hence became liable to pay, and did pay, the amount of the judgment; that, after the return day of the execution, and before he paid the amount, he again demanded payment of the defendants, who again promised…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. H. A. Moss & Son, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1936
- Fowler v. HallAppellate Court of Illinois · 1880