Dinet v. Eigenmann

Citations

• 96 Ill. 39
• 1880 Ill. LEXIS 3

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurisdiction—Recorder’s Court—estoppel to deny. Where, after the destruction of the records of the Recorder’s Court of Chicago, the parties to a suit appeared in that court, and by agreement and an order of court, restored the record of the suit as unfinished business of that court, it having acquired jurisdiction before the adoption of the new constitution, and judgment was rendered in the case against the defendant, it was held, that the defendant, by treating the case as unfinished business and consenting to a trial of the case on its merits, would not be allowed to say it was not unfinished business in that court at the adoption of the constitution by showing that the venue had been changed to some other court.</p> <p>2. Record—can not be overcome by recitals in abstracts of title. Where the records of a court were restored after their destruction, it was held, that the record as thus restored could not be supplied or overcome by a memorandum in an abstract of title, showing that the venue had been changed to some other court before the records were restored.</p> <p>3. Chancery—relief against judgment. A bill in chancery to set aside a judgment at law alleged that the complainant took no part at the trial, because his attorney of record was at that time engaged in professional business at another court, and that the attorney for the plaintiff in the suit at law fraudulently presented but a part of the record upon which the judgment was recovered. The charge of fraud was general, and the alleged defect in the presentation of the record was not shown to have done any wrong to the complainant: Held, that the bill failed to show any equitable grounds for relief.</p>