Wann v. McNulty
Illinois Supreme Court
Assumpsit in the Jo Daviess Circuit, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, who were sued as a firm, known as the “East Fork Furnace Company.” At the first term,—October term 1842,—two of the defendants pleaded non assumpsit, and the remaining defendants were defaulted.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit in the Jo Daviess Circuit, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, who were sued as a firm, known as the “East Fork Furnace Company.” At the first term,—October term 1842,—two of the defendants pleaded non assumpsit, and the remaining defendants were defaulted. At the October term 1845, the Hon. Thomas C. Browme presiding, the defendants who had appeared and pleaded, made a motion for leave to file an additional plea, alleging a former recovery by the plaintiff against Robert Shaw, one of the firm, in the same Court, for the same promises and undertakings,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Opinion of the Court was delivered by
Caton, J.*
The two first errors assigned may be disposed of with the single remark, that the motions, the decisions of which are there assigned for error, were addressed to the discretion of the Court, and those decisions cannot be assigned for error. We may, however, remark, that we think that discretion was very properly exercised in this case. The first was a motion, after issue had been joined and several terms had intervened, for leave to file an additional plea of former recovery for the same cause of action. And the second was a motion by Wann,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sheehy v. Mandeville & JamessonSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Robertson v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1821
- Young v. BlackSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
- Wildridge v. PattersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1818
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hoy v. HeaverSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- McFarlane v. KippSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903