Hunt v. Tinkham
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, upon a note and an account. The defendant filed the general issue, as also special pleas. On the 16th day of July, 1857, the pleas were filed, verified by defendant.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, upon a note and an account. The defendant filed the general issue, as also special pleas. On the 16th day of July, 1857, the pleas were filed, verified by defendant. On the 23rd October, 1857, Hunt made application as follows for a change of venue: To the Hon. John M. Wilson, Judge of the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, of the State of Illinois: Bela T. Hunt, the above named defendant, respectfully represents that he fears that he will not receive a fair trial of this action in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, in which this action is pending, on…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
The court properly overruled the motion to change the venue. No notice of the motion was given, and the statute positively requires a notice. It is a misapprehension to say that here no notice could have been given. It is certain that at least one day’s notice, could have been given, for the affidavit is made the day before the motion, and there is no excuse shown why notice was not given as the statute required.
The judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Miller v. PenceIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
- Marble v. BonhotelIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
- Utley v. BurnsIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- People Ex Rel. Romani v. MeyeringIllinois Supreme Court · 1933
- Roll v. Springfield Consolidated Railway Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1922
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.