TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

County Court ex rel. Weinheimer v. Rutz

The County Court of Madison County, for the use of Henry Weinheimer v. Abraham Rutz

Cnty. Court ex rel. Weinheimer v. Rutz, 63 Ill. 65 (1872)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1872
Citations
63 Ill. 65
Syllabus
1. Evidence—;judgment rendered by justices. Technical precision in matters of form can not be regarded in entries upon justices’ dockets. It is sufficient if the meaning is plain. 3. The entry upon a justice’s docket, beginning with the title of the case, giving the names of the parties in full, and after reciting the various steps taken in the case, concluded by rendering a judgment for §99.99 “against the defendant,” without saying in favor of the plaintiff. On objection that the judgment did not show in whose favor it was rendered, the court refused to admit the record in evidence: Held, that the record should have been admitted, and that a judgment against the defendant must necessarily be in favor of the plaintiff.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. Joseph Gillespie, Judge, presiding.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam : The record of the judgment rendered by the justice of the peace, should have been admitted in evidence. The only objection taken to it is that it does not show in whose favor it was rendered. But the entry upon the justice’s docket begins with the title of the case, giving the names of the parties in full, and, after reciting the various steps taken in the case, concludes by rendering a judgment for $99.99 “ against the defendant,” without saying in favor of plaintiff. This court has often said that technical precision in matters of form can not be required in entries upon justices’ dockets. It is sufficient if the meaning is plain. In this case it is so. A judgment against the defendant must necessarily be in favor of the plaintiff.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed,.

How later courts describe this case

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

1891: 11896: 21903: 11917: 11921: 118912026peak 1896 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fowler v. Thomsen94 N.W. 810 (Neb. 1903)
  2. County of Du Page v. Martin39 Ill. App. 298 (1891)
  3. Brown v. Owens64 Ill. App. 345 (1896)
  4. Stroup v. Hobbs65 Ill. App. 296 (1896)
  5. People ex rel. New Boston Fish Co. v. Ferguson206 Ill. App. 578 (1917)
  6. Jacobson v. Austin222 Ill. App. 491 (1921)

Most recent

  1. Jacobson v. Austin222 Ill. App. 491 (1921)
  2. People ex rel. New Boston Fish Co. v. Ferguson206 Ill. App. 578 (1917)
  3. Fowler v. Thomsen94 N.W. 810 (Neb. 1903)
  4. Stroup v. Hobbs65 Ill. App. 296 (1896)
  5. Brown v. Owens64 Ill. App. 345 (1896)
  6. County of Du Page v. Martin39 Ill. App. 298 (1891)

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