Branigan v. Rose
Illinois Supreme Court
Assumpsit, in the Cook County Court, brought by the appellees against the appellant. The case was heard at the November term 1846, the Hon. Hugh T. Dickey presiding. The defendant pleaded the pendency of an attachment suit in abatement, which plea appears in the brief of the counsel for the appellees. There was a demurrer to the plea, which the Court sustained.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, in the Cook County Court, brought by the appellees against the appellant. The case was heard at the November term 1846, the Hon. Hugh T. Dickey presiding. The defendant pleaded the pendency of an attachment suit in abatement, which plea appears in the brief of the counsel for the appellees. There was a demurrer to the plea, which the Court sustained. The defendant not answering further, the Court assessed the plaintiff’s damages, and rendered a judgment upon the assessment.
1Opinion of the Court
The Opinion of the Court was delivered by
Treat, J.*
This action was commenced in the Cook County Court, by Rose & Rattle against Branigan. The declaration was in assumpsit. The defendant filed a plea in abatement, averring in substance the pendency in the same Court of a proceeding in attachment on the same cause of action, commenced prior to the institution of this suit. The Court sustained á demurrer to the plea, but rendered no formal judgment of respondeat ouster. The defendant failing to answer further to the action, the plaintiff’s damages were assessed by the. Court, by the agreement of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Embree & Collins v. HannaNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Winthrop v. CarltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Morton v. WebbSupreme Court of Vermont · 1835
- Scott, Trotter & Tilford v. ColemanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1824
3Cited by1 opinion
- Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. GillettIndiana Court of Appeals · 1921