Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 Ill. App. 491

Payne v. Taylor

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided February 4, 1890

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1890-02-04

Clair County; the Hon. William H. Snyder, Judge, presiding. This case was tried before a justice of the peace and appealed to the Circuit Court of St. Clair County. On trial in the Circuit Court, the plaintiffs, to maintain the issues on their part, gave in evidence the following transcript of judgment of a justice of the peace: “ In Justice Court, before G. W. Morgenthaler, a justice of the peace. Suit was brought by Willis Taylor and E. H. Burgess, for the use of A. 0.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1912

3 state decisions

Relies on Garfield v. Douglass · Outlaw v. Davis · Zimmerman v. Zimmerman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-02-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Phillips, J.

¶1The transcript showing the issue of summons and containing the recital—“ It appearing that due service was had on J. B. Payne,” must be held sufficient, prima facie, to show a finding by the court of service in time, and that the justice had jurisdiction of the person of defendant on that trial. Willoughby v. Dewey, 54 Ill. 266; Pardon v. Dwire et al., 23 Ill. 572.

¶2The transcript containing this recital, finding the justice had jurisdiction of the person, it was properly admitted in evidence without other proof than that appearing by the recital in the transcript of service on defendant. Hor was there error in refusing to permit the defendant to show by parol he was not served with process to appear before the justice in that suit. Garfield v. Douglass, 22 Ill. 100; Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 15 Ill. 84.

¶3It is objected that inasmuch as summons was issued on the 26th of December, 1887, returnable on the 2d of January, 1888, at 10 o’clock a. m., and the transcript recites that “by order of plaintiff the case adjourned to 6 o’clock p. m. on the 2d day of January, 1888,” it not appearing when the adjournment was made or that the plaintiff was present at the hour at which the case was set for trial, that it amounted to a discontinuance; and it is further objected that it does not appear from the transcript that the case was heard at 6 o’clock, at the time to which it was continued. Technical accuracy in transcripts by justices of the peace, can not be required. The inference must be indulged that the justice, at the proper time of return, as fixed in the summons, continued the case, and it must be further inferred that at the proper time a hearing was had. Outlaw v. Davis et al., 27 Ill. 467; Crichton v. Beebe, 7 Ill. App. 272. The judgment must be affirmed.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/34/illapp/491 · .json · Public domain