People v. Compher
Illinois Supreme Court
The facts of this case are set out in the opinion of the court. O. Peters, for appellants. The plaintiffs were entitled to their writ of inquiry in the county of Tazewell; the original judgment having been rendered there. It is objected that our practice act inhibits the institutions of these proceedings in that county, R. S. 413, § 3, because it is not the county of the defendants.
Read the full summary
The facts of this case are set out in the opinion of the court. O. Peters, for appellants. The plaintiffs were entitled to their writ of inquiry in the county of Tazewell; the original judgment having been rendered there. It is objected that our practice act inhibits the institutions of these proceedings in that county, R. S. 413, § 3, because it is not the county of the defendants. The proceedings are instituted under the 18th section of Practice Act, R. S. p. 416, § 18. At common law, the plaintiff, in an action upon a bond with conditions, could assign but a single breach ; and this for…
1Opinion of the CourtTreat, C. J.
In September, 1849, William Compher, sheriff of Peoria county, with William S. Moss, Clark Cleaveland, and Clement Ewalt, as his sureties, executed a bond to the people of the State of Illinois, in the penalty of $62,000, and conditioned that he would perform all the duties required to be performed by him, as collector of Peoria county, in the time and manner prescribed by law. In August, 1850, the people brought an action of debt on the bond, in the Sangamon circuit court, to recover the amount of the State tax for the year 1849, collected by Compher, and not paid into the State treasury.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McDole v. McDoleIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
- Huntington v. AurandAppellate Court of Illinois · 1897
- Morhiners v. County Court ex rel. BiggeIllinois Supreme Court · 1872