How v. Mortell
Illinois Supreme Court
In this case the action at Jaw was in ejectment, commenced in 1855, by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants in error, to recover about half an acre of land. It is alleged that an agreement was made, soon after the suit was commenced, between the attorneys of the parties, that the case should not be tried without notice from each to the other. It appears that the attorney for plaintiffs left the State, and another was employed in his stead.
Read the full summary
In this case the action at Jaw was in ejectment, commenced in 1855, by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants in error, to recover about half an acre of land. It is alleged that an agreement was made, soon after the suit was commenced, between the attorneys of the parties, that the case should not be tried without notice from each to the other. It appears that the attorney for plaintiffs left the State, and another was employed in his stead. The case was tried two years after it was commenced, in November, 1857, "by the new attorney for plaintiffs, no person being present for…
1Opinion of the Court
"Walkee, J.
Courts of equity are invested with jurisdiction to decree new trials at law, when the judgment has been obtained by accident, mistake or fraud. This is the well recognized practice of the court. In this ease it was clearly established, by the evidence of Harvey, the attorney for the defendants in error, that the agreement was made and violated, as alleged in the bill, and whether by fraud or accident, the effect upon the rights of the parties is the same. That it was violated by design, seems to be clear, from the fact that the first writ of possession was sued out, but not…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Brake v. PayneIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
- Damschroeder v. ThiasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Holmes v. StatelerIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Foote v. DespainIllinois Supreme Court · 1877
- Leigh v. ArmorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.