Toupin v. Gargnier
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of trespass, vi et armis, brought in the St. Clair Circuit Court by the appellee, which was tried by a jury Underwood, Judge, presiding, at the September term, 1850. A verdict was found for the appellee for sixty dollars. A motion for a new trial was entered by appellants.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass, vi et armis, brought in the St. Clair Circuit Court by the appellee, which was tried by a jury Underwood, Judge, presiding, at the September term, 1850. A verdict was found for the appellee for sixty dollars. A motion for a new trial was entered by appellants. Before judgment, the appellees entered a motion to dismiss the suit, and produced and filed two affidavits in support of the motion, showing that an agreement had been made between appellee and one of the appellants, that the case should be dismissed as to all the appellants and that each party should pay…
1Opinion of the CourtTreat, C. J.
In our opinion the Court erred in not sustaining the motion to dismiss. It clearly appeared that the parties had agreed, while the case was pending and undetermined, and before the assignment to Underwood and Snyder was executed, that the suit should be dismissed, each party to pay his own costs. Two witnesses swore positively that sneli an agreement was made, and there was nothing in the case calculated to impeach the correctness of their statements. The existence of the agreement was not even denied by the plaintiff, as it probably would have been, if there had been any question respecting…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Cummins Diesel Michigan, Inc. v. The FalconCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1962
- Miller v. MillerIllinois Supreme Court · 1928
- Strozewski v. Sherman Equipment Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1979
- Coultas v. GreenIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
- Cummins Diesel Michigan, Inc. v. The FalconCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1962
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.