Wilson v. King
Citations
- 83 Ill. 232
Syllabus
<p>1. Continuance—showing on second application for same cause. Where a cause has been continued on account of the illness of a co-defendant, afflicted with epilepsy, with occasional intervals of relief, who is desired as a witness, on a second application the party should show why he could not have taken his deposition after the previous term during such intervals, and procure the affidavit of the attending physician or other person familiar with the case, showing a probability of the recovery of the witness, so that his deposition can be taken, and the grounds for such belief.</p> <p>2. Practice—time to amend pleas on nolle to special counts. Where the plaintiff, after the impanelling of a jury, entered a nolle as to the special counts of his declaration, which were upon promissory notes, and the defendant asked leave until the next morning to amend his pleas, which were, partial failure of consideration to the special counts, and the general issue, and the court granted leave to amend instanter, refusing to postpone the trial: Held, no error.</p> <p>3. Same—when objection to evidence must be specific. A general objection to evidence will be regarded as going only to its materiality under the issues. •Where assigned notes are offered under the common counts without proof of their execution and assignment, a general objection is properly overruled, and no specific objection can be urged in this court. The practice requires that the objection be pointed out, so as to afford an opportunity of removing it by other evidence.</p> <p>4. Failure of consideration—when it must be specially pleaded. Where the declaration counts upon a promissory note, or contains the common counts only, and the plaintiff files a copy of the note sued on, with a written statement that he will rely on the note alone for a recovery, the defendant will be required to plead specially a want of or a total or partial failure of consideration; but where the common counts alone are relied on, without
Judges: Walker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Melbourne v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1906-01-15· cited 25×
- Brown v. SchintzIllinois Supreme Court· 1903-06-16· cited 11×
- Clarke v. NewtonIllinois Supreme Court· 1908-06-18· cited 9×
- Western Assurance Co. v. MasonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1880-02-04· cited 7×
- American Central Insurance v. Birds Building & Loan Ass'nAppellate Court of Illinois· 1899-03-10· cited 7×
- Smith v. Western Trust & Guaranty Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1909-10-25· cited 4×
- Dairyman's State Bank v. DunhamAppellate Court of Illinois· 1933-05-25· cited 4×
- Summerville v. RodgersAppellate Court of Illinois· 1961-06-07· cited 3×
- Hansen v. HaleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1892-06-03· cited 3×
- Runyan v. MoonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1932-05-11· cited 3×
- Iron Clad Dryer Co. v. Chicago Trust & Savings BankAppellate Court of Illinois· 1893-01-30· cited 1×
- Dickinson v. Citizens National Bank of Franklin, IndianaAppellate Court of Illinois· 1897-07-15· cited 1×
- Many, Blanc & Co. v. KruegerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1910-03-18· cited 1×
- Metropolitan Safety Fund Accident Ass'n v. WindoverAppellate Court of Illinois· 1890-06-30
- Columbia Heating Co. v. O'HalloranAppellate Court of Illinois· 1908-10-08
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.