Pells v. Snell
Illinois Supreme Court
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Third District;— heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Ford county; the Hon. C. B. Smith, Judge, presiding. The words, “departs from and resides out of the State,” in the Limitation law, mean an actual and not an apparent residence. Prior to the amendment of the section, merely departing from the State stopped the running of the statute.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Third District;— heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Ford county; the Hon. C. B. Smith, Judge, presiding. The words, “departs from and resides out of the State,” in the Limitation law, mean an actual and not an apparent residence. Prior to the amendment of the section, merely departing from the State stopped the running of the statute. In addition to being out of the State, there is engrafted by the amendment the additional idea of an actual residence out of the State. Campbell v. White, 22 Mich. 195; Langden v. Doud, 6 Allen, 423;…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bailey
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Thomas Snell and others, surviving partners of the late firm of Snell, Taylor & Co., against William H.. Pells, to recover of him certain moneys, the avails of a promissory note formerly held by him, to which the plaintiffs claim, ex equo et bono, to be entitled. A former judgment, which was in favor of the defendant, was reversed by this court on appeal, and the facts involved in the controversy are so fully stated in the report of our former decision that they need not be repeated here. See Snell, Taylor & Co. v. Pells, 113 Ill. 145. After the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- In re WrigleyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1831
- Drew v. DrewSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1854
- Hackett v. KendallSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
- Ford v. BabcockThe Superior Court of New York City · 1849
- Snell, Taylor & Co. v. PellsIllinois Supreme Court · 1885
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- In re MulfordIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
- Jones v. FosterIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
- Keith-O'Brien Co. v. SnyderUtah Supreme Court · 1917
- Hislop v. TaaffeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- Blakeslee v. HoitAppellate Court of Illinois · 1904
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.