Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Haskell

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1859PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Hasicell sued Thompson on a guarantee of a note. The declaration contained a special count on the note; there were also the common counts for money had and received. There was a judgment by default, upon an assessment of damages by the clerk, upon all the counts in the declaration. The sheriff’s return to the service of summons was signed “ James A. Dick,” without anything added to the signature to indicate who James A. Dick was, or what office he held.

Read the full summary

Hasicell sued Thompson on a guarantee of a note. The declaration contained a special count on the note; there were also the common counts for money had and received. There was a judgment by default, upon an assessment of damages by the clerk, upon all the counts in the declaration. The sheriff’s return to the service of summons was signed “ James A. Dick,” without anything added to the signature to indicate who James A. Dick was, or what office he held. The errors assigned are, that the writ did not appear to be executed by the sheriff, or any authorized officer; and that the clerk assessed…

1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.

This was an action of assumpsit, by Haskell against Thompson, on his written guarantee of a promissory note. The declaration counted on. this guarantee, and contained also the common count for money had and received. A copy of the note and written guarantee was filed as follows : “ Copy of note which will be offered in evidence under all the counts of the above declaration.”

The summons is in the usual form, with this return endorsed on it:

“ I have served the within summons by reading the same to the within named John Bradley Thompson this 20th April, A. D. 1858.

JAMES A. DICK.”

A default was…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. HumasonWashington Supreme Court · 1893
  2. People v. AustinAppellate Court of Illinois · 1983
  3. Bell v. StevensSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
  4. Gorman v. BallWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
  5. Newman v. WillittsIllinois Supreme Court · 1871

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API