Hurd v. Burr
Illinois Supreme Court
The following shows the state of the record in the case of Hurd et al. v. Burr et al.: This was an action of assumpsit in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, by the defendants in error, against the plaintiffs in error. Summons issued on the 20th day of June, 1855, returnable on the 1st Monday of July, then next, and was served on the 21st day of June, 1855, on Hurd, Periam and Ruckel, and returned “ not found,” as to Beebe.
Read the full summary
The following shows the state of the record in the case of Hurd et al. v. Burr et al.: This was an action of assumpsit in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, by the defendants in error, against the plaintiffs in error. Summons issued on the 20th day of June, 1855, returnable on the 1st Monday of July, then next, and was served on the 21st day of June, 1855, on Hurd, Periam and Ruckel, and returned “ not found,” as to Beebe. On the 20th of June, 1855, declaration counting on a promissory note for $171.23, with the common money counts for $2,000, was filed with a general breach, and damages…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
The statute under which the questions presented in this record arise, is partial, local and in derogation of the general law of the State on the same subject, and being so, it should be construed liberally for all those who are liable to be oppressed by it.
We have considered this statute, to some extent in Mc Vicker v. Wright, post, and then expresssed our convictions that for the locality for which it was enacted it should be construed strictly—no greater effect to be conceded to it, than its language demands.
It has come before the court in other cases, for construction. In McDonnel v.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Haggard v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Perkins v. KleinAppellate Court of Illinois · 1896
- Walling v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920