TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Frink v. Bolton

John Frink v. John Bolton

Frink v. Bolton, 15 Ill. 343 (1854)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1854
Judges
Treat
Citations
15 Ill. 343
Cited by 6
Headnotes
APPEAL FROM DU PAGE. As between the parties a receipt is always subject to explanation.
Summary
This was a proceeding to set aside a fee bill and execution issued by Bolton against Frink & Co. Bolton had a judgment against Frink & Co., which was pending by appeal in the supreme court; while so pending a settlement was made, and a draft as follows was given and paid: — • « $650. “ Pay to J. N. Arnold or order, six hundred and fifty dollars, being in full for judgment of Bolton v. Frink and Walker. Henry Frinic. “ To John Frink & Co., Chicago. “ Ottawa, July 6, 1853.” On which was indorsed,— " July 9, 1853. Received of W. Vernon for J. Frink. J. N. Arnold.” It was insisted by Frink & Co. that the above amount covered all costs. Bolton denied this assumption. Henderson, Judge, at April term, 1854, dismissed the order to stay execution, and Frink and Walker appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Treat

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Treat, C. J. Primd facie, the order and receipt showed a satisfaction of the entire judgment. But the transaction was subject to explanation. It was competent to show the character and extent of the settlement. As between the parties, a receipt may always be explained. The attorney of the plaintiff testifies, that the settlement only related to the damages recovered, and that it did not extend to the costs of the case.' As this statement is not contradicted by the other witnesses, it must be considered as true. The payment of the order, therefore, only amounted to a discharge of the damages, leaving the judgment for costs in full force. The court properly refused to quash the execution, issued for the collection of the costs.

The judgment id affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1866–1867: 11888–1889: 21896–1897: 11902–1903: 218662026peak 1888 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gillett v. Wiley126 Ill. 310 (1888)
  2. Hart v. Stribling25 Fla. 435 (1889)
  3. Reeside v. United States2 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1866) · Concurrence
  4. Geo. E. Lloyd & Co. v. Manufacturers & Merchants Warehouse Co.102 Ill. App. 551 (1902)
  5. Culver v. Belt72 Ill. App. 619 (1897)
  6. Rork v. Minor109 Ill. App. 12 (1903)

Most recent

  1. Rork v. Minor109 Ill. App. 12 (1903)
  2. Geo. E. Lloyd & Co. v. Manufacturers & Merchants Warehouse Co.102 Ill. App. 551 (1902)
  3. Culver v. Belt72 Ill. App. 619 (1897)
  4. Hart v. Stribling25 Fla. 435 (1889)
  5. Gillett v. Wiley126 Ill. 310 (1888)
  6. Reeside v. United States2 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1866) · Concurrence

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list