Roberts v. Thomson
Illinois Supreme Court
This- was an action of assumpsit on an indorsed note-. The defendant below moved to continue the cause, because the note was indorsed by the firm name of the payees, the indorsement not being preceded by a full or regular/assignment, which motion was overruled. The defendant then pleaded to the jurisdiction, which plea the- eourt ordered stricken from the files.
Read the full summary
This- was an action of assumpsit on an indorsed note-. The defendant below moved to continue the cause, because the note was indorsed by the firm name of the payees, the indorsement not being preceded by a full or regular/assignment, which motion was overruled. The defendant then pleaded to the jurisdiction, which plea the- eourt ordered stricken from the files. The defendant then pleaded to the merits, which plea was also stricken from the files, because it was not accompanied by an affidavit of merits, as is required by the rules of the court. The plaintiff below (defendant in error) then…
1Opinion of the CourtBkeese, J.
This appeal seems- to- have been taken more for delay, than for any substantial error in the proceedings.
The motion to continue-the cause for the want of a copy of the indorsement of the note on which the suit was brought, was properly overruled, on the authority of the case of Franey v. True, 26 Ill. 185. But the- fact is, that a copy was given as the record recites, “ Indorsed Jevne & Almini.”
“ The plea of the privilege,” as it is called, which was the usual plea to the jurisdiction of the court, was properly disposed of in a summary manner, as the defendant was not in a position to plead…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Diversey Liquidating Corp. v. NeunkirchenIllinois Supreme Court · 1939
- McAlister v. SchickIllinois Supreme Court · 1992
- Archer v. ClaflinIllinois Supreme Court · 1863
- Daniels v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Hatterman v. ThompsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1899
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.