Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

87 Ill. App. 419

Taylor v. Richman

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided February 27, 1900

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1900-02-27

<p>1. Practice—Judgments in Excess of the Ad Damnum.—It is reversible error to enter judgment for a greater amount than is claimed by the plaintiff in his declaration.</p> <p>2. Same—Recovery for Interest Not Due at the Commencement of Suit.—A party can not recover for money not due at the time of instituting suit.</p>

Relies on Hichins v. Lyon · Altes v. Hinckler · Kelley v. Third National Bank

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1900-02-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1920

3 state decisions

10190019101920decided

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 Harker

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2At the February term, 1897, of the Circuit Court of Mason County, the defendant in error brought suit against the plaintiffs in error to recover interest due on a promissory note for $2,524, dated May 14, 1894, and due in six years. The note bore interest at the rate of seven per cent, payable annually, and at the time suit was brought there was two years’ interest due, amounting to $353.36. The damages were laid in the declaration at $500. The case was continued for service on defendants not served until the August term, 1897, at which time another year’s interest had become due. No pleas being filed, judgment by default was entered against the plaintiffs in error for $568.76, being for three years’ interest, and $68.76 in excess of the ad damnum in the declaration.

¶3The judgment is erroneous, for two reasons: It exceeds the ad damvnum in the declaration. It is reversible error to enter judgment for a greater amount than is claimed in the plaintiffs’ declaration. Hichins v. Lyon, 35 Ill. 150; Altes v. Hinckler et al., 36 Ill. 275; Kelly v. National Bank, etc., 64 Ill. 541.

¶4It includes a year’s interest that was not due at the time suit was commenced. It is well settled that a party can not recover for money not due at the time of instituting suit.

¶5The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

/87/illapp/419 · .json · Public domain