Dodge v. People
Citations
- 113 Ill. 491
Syllabus
<p>1. Justice of the peace—as to the form or mode of pleading, in respect to various defences. No written pleadings are required in ordinary actions before justices of the peace. All the allegations of the parties are presumed to be oro tenus, and their rights are to be determined from what is proved, rather than upon what is alleged or pleaded.</p> <p>2. If a village sues in its corporate name before a justice of the peace, a prior judgment of ouster in a quo warranto proceeding against it may be set up and relied on in abatement of the action, if the defence is set up in apt time before the justice; but no formal written plea is necessary.</p> <p>3. A dilatory defence in suits before justices of the peace must be made at the earliest opportunity, as is required in courts of record, by a formal plea, though it need not be in writing. Such a defence can not be taken advantage of for the first time on an appeal.</p> <p>4. By éxpress statute, no party to a suit before a justice of the peace is allowed to deny the execution or indorsement of any written instrument sued on, or offered as a set-off, unless such denial is made by affidavit. But in such case no plea is required other than the affidavit itself.</p> <p>5. Same — on appeal—trial and jurisdiction. On an appeal from a justice of the peace to the circuit court, the case must be tried de novo, upon the proofs offered, without written pleadings; and the court trying the same will have no more extensive power or jurisdiction than the justice of the peace.</p> <p>6. Municipal cobpobation—effect of a judgment of ouster on quo warranto. The effect of a judgment of ouster on an information in the nature of a quo warranto, against a village and its board of trustees, is to immediately dissolve the corporation, whether it existed de jure or de facto, and work its dissolution, and take away all its rights, liberties, privileges and franchises.</p> <p>7. Same—effect of a dissolution on the power of its officers. The dissol
Judges: Mulkey
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Village of Riverside v. KuhneAppellate Court of Illinois· 1948-11-16· cited 23×
- Emery v. HennessyIllinois Supreme Court· 1928-06-23· cited 17×
- Chalstran v. Board of Education of Township High School District 13Illinois Supreme Court· 1910-04-21· cited 13×
- Hornbrook v. Town of Elm GroveWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1895-04-13· cited 10×
- Town of Canoe Creek v. McEniryAppellate Court of Illinois· 1886-12-11· cited 6×
- People Ex Rel. Lerch v. SandmanIllinois Supreme Court· 1930-02-21· cited 3×
- Johnson v. Royal Motor Car InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois· 1922-07-11· cited 3×
- Wilcox v. TetheringtonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1902-09-11· cited 2×
- People Ex Rel. Seiler v. CallowayIllinois Supreme Court· 1928-02-24· cited 1×
- Chambers v. AllinAppellate Court of Illinois· 1912-02-20
- Gary v. SensemanAppellate Court of Illinois· 1919-11-07
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.