Legal Opinion

Wells v. Mathews

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 26, 1897PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Assumpsit, on a promissory note. Error to the County Court of Peoria .County; the Hon. R. H. Lovett, Judge, presiding.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion per Curiam.

This was an action on assumpsit to recover on a promissory note for $200. The declaration contained a special count on the note and the common counts. The praecipe and declaration laid the damages at $500, while the writ only demanded $200. The summons was issued December 20, 1895, and served December 27, 1895. On January 8, 1896, the defendants filed the plea of the general issue. On January 27, 1896, the court, without noticing the plea, had the defendants called and defaulted, and, without the intervention of a jury, assessed the plaintiff’s damages at $221.55, and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mason v. AbbottIllinois Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Sammis v. ClarkIllinois Supreme Court · 1856
  3. Utter v. E. S. Jaffray & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Parrott v. GossAppellate Court of Illinois · 1885
  5. Faurot v. Park National BankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1890

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Dils v. City of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1978
  2. Dorn v. BriggsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1903
  3. Dorn v. Bradner Smith & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1903
  4. Greenys v. JonalisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API