Farwell v. Jenkins
Appellate Court of Illinois
Appeal'from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. John Gr. ¡Rogues, Judge, presiding. This was an action by appellants, John Y. Farwell & Co. against Barber & Hartman, upon a promissory note, bearing date October 21,1885, whereby the defendants promised to pay the plaintiffs on demand, the sum of twenty-seven thousand six hundred sixty-two dollars and sixty-two cents.
Read the full summary
Appeal'from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. John Gr. ¡Rogues, Judge, presiding. This was an action by appellants, John Y. Farwell & Co. against Barber & Hartman, upon a promissory note, bearing date October 21,1885, whereby the defendants promised to pay the plaintiffs on demand, the sum of twenty-seven thousand six hundred sixty-two dollars and sixty-two cents. October 30, 1885, an attachment in aid was sued out and levied upon a quantity of goods of defendants, Barber & Hartman. By special leave of the court,(Barber & Hartman not appearing to contest the case or attachment…
1Opinion of the CourtMcAllister, J.
There being no bill.o.f. exceptions, the offiy questions that legitimately arise upon this appeal, must be upon the action of the court in sustaining the interplea of Jenkins, by overruling the .plaintiff’s demurrer thereto. The first object "on taken here to that plea is that it is not a plea in abatement, but that it traverses the fact’s stated in the affidavit for thp attaehipcnj;, -which, under .the statute, can he dope only -by the defendants ip .the attachment, and by a plea jn ahateme.pt. As the .statute formerly -was, a :plea in -abatement was the.only form in which said…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mills v. GleasonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- M'Clure v. ErwinNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Bamberger, Bloom & Co. v. HalbergCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1880
- Laclede Bank v. KeelerIllinois Supreme Court · 1882
- Baily v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1791