TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Taylor v. Richman

Benjamin W. Taylor, Estelle F. Taylor and William R. Proctor v. Elizabeth Richman

Taylor v. Richman, 87 Ill. App. 419 (1900)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 27, 1900
Judges
Harker
Citations
87 Ill. App. 4191899 Ill. App. LEXIS 400
Disposition
Reversed and remanded.
Headnotes
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. 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.
Summary
Assumpsit.—Error to the Circuit Court of Mason County; the Hon. Thomas N. Mehan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1899.

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

Opinion of the Court — Harker

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

Mr. Justice Harker delivered the opinion of the court.

At 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.

The 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 .

It 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.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

1903: 11911: 11920: 119032026peak 1903 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Prokes v. Bohemian Roman Catholic First Central Union165 Ill. App. 105 (1911)
  2. Dorn v. Briggs106 Ill. App. 79 (1903)
  3. Krumser v. Meeker-Magner Co.220 Ill. App. 376 (1920)

Most recent

  1. Krumser v. Meeker-Magner Co.220 Ill. App. 376 (1920)
  2. Prokes v. Bohemian Roman Catholic First Central Union165 Ill. App. 105 (1911)
  3. Dorn v. Briggs106 Ill. App. 79 (1903)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Hichins v. Lyon, 35 Ill. 150 (1864) 7
Altes v. Hinckler, 36 Ill. 275 (1864) 7
Kelley v. Third Nat'l Bank, 64 Ill. 541 (1872) 6

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