Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

37 Ill. 91

McNerney v. Newberry

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1865

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1865-04-15

On the 6th of December, 1858, James McEerney filed an affidavit before DeWolf, a Justice of the Peace of Cook county, on which a summons was issued against Lucius Eewberry, as garnishee of one E. H. Sanders, which was returned by the constable on the same day, served, by reading to Eewberry.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1865-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1925

4 state decisions

101865187018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Breese

¶1delivered the opinion of the court:

¶2This was a suit before a Justice of the Peace, and taken by certiorari, to the Court of Common Pleas of Cook county. A motion was made in that court, to dismiss the certiorari for insufficiency of the petition, which the court denied, and on trial had, rendered a judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff brings the case here by writ of error, wherein the principal error assigned, is in refusing to dismiss the certiorari. '

¶3It is insisted by the plaintiff in error, that the petition is not in conformity to the statute, that the statute requires the petition should show that the judgment was not the result of negligence on the part of the petitioner, and this petition in fact, admits negligence.

¶4The petition, so far as we can see, is in substantial compliance with the statute. It appears from it, ‘that the petitioner had been summoned as garnishee in a great number of cases; that he appeared before the justice and fully answered, and was formally discharged by the justice, and went about his business which called him away from Chicago the place of trial, and which occupied his attention for many days, he, during all the time, having no reason to suppose that a judgment had been rendered against him. The discharge by the Justice of the Peace, necessarily quieted the mind of the petitioner, and lulled him into security and inaction, which cannot be attributed to negligence on his part. The case shows there was no negligence. The judgment is shown to be unjust, by the fact, that he owed nothing to the party to whom he was alleged to be the debtor, and that he had nothing in his possession or under his control belonging to the debtor. The petition also shows why he could not take an appeal in the ordinary way, and that was because he did not know of the judgment, until it was too late to appeal.

¶5We see no error in the record and must affirm the judgment.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

/37/ill/91 · .json · Public domain