Haven v. Green
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of debt on an appeal bond, brought by defendant in error against plaintiffs in error,' on the following bond: Know all men by these presents, that we, Jasper Haven, Edson G. Haven, and Edmund E. Haven, are held and firmly bound unto Daniel Green, in the penal sum of two hundred dollars, lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, and administrators, jointly and severally, by these…
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt on an appeal bond, brought by defendant in error against plaintiffs in error,' on the following bond: Know all men by these presents, that we, Jasper Haven, Edson G. Haven, and Edmund E. Haven, are held and firmly bound unto Daniel Green, in the penal sum of two hundred dollars, lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, and administrators, jointly and severally, by these presents. Witness our hands and seals, this 14th day of November, 1857. The condition of the above obligation is such…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
We do not think any of the points made by the plaintiffs in error are substantial. The facts do not show a variance; such was not the question before the court. The questions were those of identity merely. ■ Was the judgment rendered on the day named in the bond, and against the parties named as having made it ? Neither of the cases cited by the plaintiffs, have any bearing on the questions here. The case of Garfield, 22 Ill. 100, decides only, that the entry upon a justice’s docket was a judgment in bar; and the policy of the law forbids that parol proof should be admitted to show that the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Garfield v. DouglassIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
- Parker v. PalmerIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by1 opinion
- Plunkett v. HamnettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912