Hankinson v. Lombard
Illinois Supreme Court
This is an action of assumpsit brought to the" August term, A. D. 1859, of the County Court of Peoria county, by appellee against appellants, as indorsers of a note. The declaration contains one special count in-the common form, with, averment that at the maturity of said note, and at all times since, said Mulford was, and yet is, a non-resident of Illinois, and without said State, so that process could not be served on him. There is also a count for money had and received.
Read the full summary
This is an action of assumpsit brought to the" August term, A. D. 1859, of the County Court of Peoria county, by appellee against appellants, as indorsers of a note. The declaration contains one special count in-the common form, with, averment that at the maturity of said note, and at all times since, said Mulford was, and yet is, a non-resident of Illinois, and without said State, so that process could not be served on him. There is also a count for money had and received. The pleas were, the general issue; non est factum, sworn to by defendants; that said Mulford was not a non-resident,…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
The first question in this case, which we propose to consider, is, whether the court below erred in refusing to suppress the deposition of Isaac G. Lombard. It appears from this record that plaintiff below served a notice on defendant’s attorney, that he would, on the fourteenth day of September, 1859, take the deposition of John C. Stewart, at the town of Galesburg, in Knox county, and of Isaac G. Lombard, in the town of Henry, in the county of Marshall, at the same hour of the same day. That one of the defendants attended at the time and place named, and cross-examined the witness Stewart.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ivey v. Cotton Mills.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Gillis v. First Nat. Bank of FrederickSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Walsh v. PetersonNebraska Supreme Court · 1900
- Cole v. HallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881