{ "id": 5093934, "name": "Dearborn Laundry Co., use of Holman Soap Company, v. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co.", "name_abbreviation": "Dearborn Laundry Co. v. Chicago & Alton R. R.", "decision_date": "1894-12-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "438", "last_page": "441", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "55 Ill. App. 438" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "126 Ill. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5404958 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/126/0493-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 Ill. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "130 Ill. 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "23 Ill. App. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 863619 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/23/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 Ill. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3067485 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/146/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 Ill. 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "7 Brad. 646", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Bradf.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "13 Ill. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2582705 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/13/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Scam. 511", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2479631 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/2/0511-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Pick. 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pick.", "case_ids": [ 2017826 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/30/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 Ill. 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5294002 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/42/0467-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ill. 313", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2584079 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/13/0313-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Ill. App. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5776394 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/3/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 Ill. 144", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 8499970 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/31/0144-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Ill. App. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 863619 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/23/0365-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 353, "char_count": 5823, "ocr_confidence": 0.497, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15528608038538155 }, "sha256": "d4d412edc6205a2da9fdd3ce4ee3120974f12d05a4b3f14673f6889a3ed8710d", "simhash": "1:d27a5711da832c9d", "word_count": 1022 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:31.699098+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Dearborn Laundry Co., use of Holman Soap Company, v. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nIn order to entitle a judgment creditor to the benefit of garnishee proceeding, it is necessary that execution shall have been issued upon the judgment and returned no property found. Sec. 1, Chap. 62, Revised Statutes.\nA justice of the peace has only such jurisdiction as the statute confers. Without a compliance with the statute, a justice has no jurisdiction to issue garnishee process. M. C. Ry. Co. v. Keohane, 31 Ill. 144; Gibbon v. Bryan, 3 Ill. App. 298.\nA judgment entered by a justice of the peace, based upon an admission by the defendant of an amount due, is not a judgment by confession. A confession of judgment is more than an acknowledgment that a certain amount is justly due; it is a consent to'the entry of judgment. Goddard v. Fisher, 23 Ill. App. 365; Campbell v. Randolph, 13 Ill. 313; Elliott v. Daiber, 42 Ill. 467.\nAppellee was therefore entitled to appeal from the judgment the justice improperly entered. The form of execution not having the signature of the justice thereon, was but a form, although delivered to and acted upon by an officer as an execution.\nThis paper, with the return thereon, was certainly as much a part of the \u201c record \u201d of the court as the entry made by the justice in his docket. And the so-called execution and return were properly admitted in evidence. Wooters v. Joseph, 137 Ill. 117; Greenleaf on Evidence, Vol. 1, Sec. 521; Welsh v. Joy, 13 Pick. 477.\nFTo execution having been issued and returned no property found, the plaintiff was properly non-suited.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman" } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant\u2019s Brief, E. A. Sherburne, Attorney.", "Appellee\u2019s Brief, H. J. Sobafford and Arthur W. Underwood, Attorneys; Wm. Brown, of Counsel." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Dearborn Laundry Co., use of Holman Soap Company, v. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co.\n1. Justices of the Peace\u2014Jurisdiction Conferred by Statute.\u2014A justice of the peace has only such jurisdiction as the statute confers; without a compliance with the statute he has no jurisdiction to issue garnishee process.\n2. Confession of Judgment\u2014What is Not.\u2014A judgment entered by a justice of the peace, based upon an admission by the defendant of an amount due, is not a judgment by confession.\n3. Same\u2014 What Is.\u2014A confession of judgment is more than an acknowledgment that a certain amount is justly due; it is a consent to the entry of judgment.\n4. Appeal\u2014By a Garnishee.\u2014An appeal lies from a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace upon an answer of a garnishee, although the judgment is only for the amount admitted by such answer.\n5. Execution\u2014Without the Signature of the Justice.\u2014A paper being in form an execution, but not having the signature of the justice of the peace, is void, although delivered to and acted upon by the officer as an execution.\n6. Garnishee Process\u2014Return of a Void Execution.\u2014A return of an officer, no property found, upon a paper purporting to be an execution but lacking the signature of the justice of the peace issuing it, is not a sufficient ground upon which to base garnishee proceedings, because there is no execution, as the law requires.\nMemorandum.\u2014Garnishee proceeding. In the Circuit Court of Cook County on appeal from a justice of the peace; the Hon. Prank Baker, Judge, presiding; appeal from a judgment of non-suit.. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed December 6, 1894.\nStatement of the Case.\nAs stated by counsel for appellant, his case presents two questions.\nFirst. If a garnishee, summoned before a justice, appears, and, in writing under oath, answers that \u201c at the date of service herein it was indebted to (the judgment debtor) on account of work done for said garnishee to the amount of $122.36, which sum is now in its possession, and which sum is due and payable,\u201d and judgment is entered on this answer, can the garnishee appeal from this judgment? In other words, is this a judgment \u201c confessed ? \u201d\nAppellant\u2019s Brief, E. A. Sherburne, Attorney.\n\u201c The right to appeal from an inferior to a superior court for the purpose of obtaining a trial de novo is unknown to the common law, and only exists where it is expressly given by statute.\u201d Schooner v. Woodworth, 1 Scam. 511; Edwards v. Vandermark, 13 Ill. 633.\nAppeals from judgments of justices of the peace to the Circuit Court shall be allowed in all cases \u201c except on judgments confessed.\u201d Sec. 62, Chap. 79, Rev, Stat, 1874, as to garnishment, says: An appeal may be taken from the judgment or any final order of the court or justice by any party to such proceeding, in like manner as appeals are taken in other cases. Sec. 28, Chap. 62.\nAppellant contended that this is a \u201c judgment confessed,\u201d and that no appeal was permissible from the judgment of the justice, and therefore the Circuit Court erred in not dismissing the appeal.\nThe admission of the testimony of the clerks and constable to contradict the record of the justice was a violation of the well-settled principle that oral testimony is not permissible to contradict a record. Koran v. Roemheld, 7 Brad. 646; Kemper v. Waverly, 81 Ill. 280; Quinn v. The People, 146 Ill. 275.\nAnd a judgment of a justice is no more open to collateral attack than that of a court of record. Leonard v. Sparks, 22 S. W. Rep. (Mo.) 889.\nAppellee\u2019s Brief, H. J. Sobafford and Arthur W. Underwood, Attorneys; Wm. Brown, of Counsel.\nA judgment entered upon the admission by a defendant of an indebtedness, is not a judgment entered by confession. Goddard v. Fisher, 23 Ill. App. 365.\nIn any event appellant can not take advantage of the order of the court in overruling his motion to dismiss the appeal, because the ruling of the court was not preserved by a bill of exceptions. The bill of exceptions in this case shows nothing on this point. The order of the court only shows an exception. Steffy v. People, 130 Ill. 101; E. St. Louis R. Co. v. Conley, 148 Ill. 493; Firemen\u2019s Ins. Co. v. Peck, 126 Ill. 493." }, "file_name": "0438-02", "first_page_order": 434, "last_page_order": 437 }