TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tucker v. Gramer

James E. Tucker v. William J. Gramer, Catherine C. Gramer

Tucker v. Gramer, 124 N.E.2d 632 (Ill. App. Ct. 1954)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 13, 1954
Docket
No. Gen. No. 46,448
Judges
Burke, Friend, Niemeyer
Citations
124 N.E.2d 6324 Ill. App. 2d 4521954 Ill. App. LEXIS 381

Opinion of the Court — Niemeyer

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

MR. JUSTICE NIEMEYER delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff appeals from an order quashing a writ of execution issued on a revival of a judgment and restraining the enforcement of the revived judgment as to certain property as to which the original judgment had been released.

On December 26,1933 plaintiff recovered a judgment against defendant and others in the amount of $4,617.52 and costs. On October 26, 1935 plaintiff executed a release of lien of the judgment as to premises described as lot 13 in block one in Mills & Sons Subdivision Number Two, etc., in Cook county, Illinois, which release was recorded with the recorder of deeds of Cook county February 4, 1936. On August 21, 1953, on affidavit and scire facias to revive the above-mentioned judgment filed in the circuit court of Cook county July 15,1953, the original judgment was revived. Execution was issued and proper steps taken to sell the above-mentioned property under the execution. On petition filed, setting up the release, of the original judgment as to the property, the order appealed from was entered.

The proceeding by scire facias to revive a judgment is not an original suit but a continuation of the suit in which the judgment was entered. Smith v. Stevens, 133 Ill. 183 . The result of the proceeding was the revival of the original judgment, not the entering of a new judgment. It was the intent of the parties by the release of the above-described property from the lien of the original judgment to forever bar the enforcement of that judgment against that property. The motion was made in apt time before the sale, the order entered is in accordance with the original intent of the parties when the release was executed, is just and proper.

The order is affirmed.

Order affirmed. BURKE, P. J. and FRIEND, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1955: 119552026peak 1955 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Smith v. Carlson127 N.E.2d 257 (Ill. App. Ct. 1955)

Most recent

  1. Smith v. Carlson127 N.E.2d 257 (Ill. App. Ct. 1955)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Smith v. Stevens, 24 N.E. 511 (Ill. 1890) 29

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