Thompson v. Turner
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit. The praecipe was filed on the 26th May, 1858, praying a summons in damages $600. On the same day a summons was issued, “ to the damage of the said plaintiff, as he says, one hundred dollars.” The declaration was filed on the 26th May, containing a special count on a promissory note for $400, and also the common counts—ad damnum, $600. The summons was served on both defendants, on the 27th of May. The defendants did not appear.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit. The praecipe was filed on the 26th May, 1858, praying a summons in damages $600. On the same day a summons was issued, “ to the damage of the said plaintiff, as he says, one hundred dollars.” The declaration was filed on the 26th May, containing a special count on a promissory note for $400, and also the common counts—ad damnum, $600. The summons was served on both defendants, on the 27th of May. The defendants did not appear. Their default was taken on the 8th of J une, and damages assessed by the clerk, at $428.20, for which judgment was rendered. At the…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
It is insisted by the plaintiffs in error that a judgment by default, the defendants not appearing although duly served with process, could not be rendered against them for a greater amount than is claimed in the summons. No authority is cited for this position, and the doctrine seems to be that the plaintiff’s declaration is the limit of his recovery. He can recover no more damages than he has laid in his declaration. 1 Ch. Pl. 339.
The prascipe in this case directed the clerk to issue a sumrnons laying the damages at six hundred dollars. Through his negligence, the damages claimed in the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Charter Bank & Trust v. NovakAppellate Court of Illinois · 1991
- Messervey v. BeckwithIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
- Sage Investment Co. v. HaleySupreme Court of Colorado · 1915