Fuller v. Robb
Illinois Supreme Court
This declaration complains of Joseph W. Tinkham, Thomas P. Eobb, and Henry Payson, defendants,'as makers of a promissory note, signed J. W. Tinkham & Co. Writ served on Joseph W. Tinkham, and Thomas P. Eobb, Henry Payson “not found.”
Read the full summary
This declaration complains of Joseph W. Tinkham, Thomas P. Eobb, and Henry Payson, defendants,'as makers of a promissory note, signed J. W. Tinkham & Co. Writ served on Joseph W. Tinkham, and Thomas P. Eobb, Henry Payson “not found.” At the October term of the Circuit Court, 1857, default was entered against Joseph W. Tinkham, and Thomas P. Eobb, concluding as follows: “ Wherefore said plaintiff ought to have and recover of defendants, Joseph W. Tinkham and Thomas P. Eobb, impleaded with Henry Payson, his damages herein sustained by reason of the premises, and therefore a reference is had to…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
In an action of assumpsit against several, the plaintiff must recover against all or none, unless some of the defendants make a personal defense, as infancy, lunacy or bankruptcy. Here, after judgment had been entered against both defendants, on the application of Robb, the court set aside the judgment as to him alone, to let in a general defense, and upon a trial of the issues which he presented he obtained a verdict and judgment, leaving the judgment still in force as to Tinkham. The court should have set aside the judgment as to both defendants, and then a successful defense by either…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Chmielewski v. MarichIllinois Supreme Court · 1954
- Gray v. JonesIllinois Supreme Court · 1899
- Williams v. BreitungIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
- Thayer, Aldrich & Co. v. FinleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
- Kasting v. KastingIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.