King v. Chicago, Danville & Vincennes R. R.

Citations

• 98 Ill. 376
• 1881 Ill. LEXIS 268

Syllabus

<p>1. Stipulation construed—whether a suit at law and one in chancery are to be tried separately or as one suit. In a suit in chancery pending, the following stipulation was made: “It is hereby stipulated and agreed that the issues now pending in a certain cause, entitled as above, in the above court, on the common law side thereof, shall be tried in the above entitled cause on the chancery side thereof, subject to the approval of the chancellor.” The law ease thus spoken of had been previously dismissed for want of prosecution, but, at the same time the foregoing stipulation was filed, there was a stipulation filed in that case, which, after entitling the cause and giving the term of court, was as follows: “It is hereby stipulated and agreed that the above cause may be reinstated on the docket, and the said suit proceed as if the same had remained continuously upon the docket, the same to be tried upon the merits according to a stipulation filed in a cause pending on the chancery side of said court between the same parties, plaintiff and defendants.” The two causes were pending in the same court and were tried before the same judge, who rendered a judgment in the case at law and a decree in the suit in chancery, treating the two cases as separate and distinct. Upon objection that, under the stipulations, the chancery case was really the only case tried, and that the questions arising in the law case were made questions in equity instead of at law, it was held, the stipulations were not to be so construed. The intent was, simply that a jury might be dispensed with, and all the evidence in both cases be submitted at once, to the same judge, who should dispose of the one as a law judge, and of the other as a chancellor.</p> <p>2. Practice—when specific objection should be made. Under a stipulation between the parties in a cause that certain depositions taken in another suit might be read in evidence in the pending suit, depositions were received in evidence against th