Stuhl v. Shipp
Stuhl v. Shipp
Opinion of the Court
The case of Hinds v. Hopkins, 28 Ill. 351, was so far modified in Rising v. Brainard, 36 Ill. 80, as to render it necessary to apply to the court below to set aside a judgment by confession, and to show some equitable reason therefor, before this court will reverse on the ground that the power of attorney was more than a year and a day old, or its execution not duly proven. This court also held in Iglehart v. Morris, 34 Ill. 503, that when the judgment was within the ad damnum laid in the declaration, it would not be reversed because it might appear to be for an amount greater than the sum due upon the note, which was the basis of the confession, no application having been made in the court below to correct the error. On the authority of these cases this judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Julius Stuhl v. Joseph A. Shipp
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Judgment by confession—in vacation,—where to object for want of proof. Where a judgment is entered by confession in vacation, under a power of attorney, more than a year and a day after the power of attorney was executed, it is necessary for the defendant to apply to the court in which the judgment was entered, to set the same aside, and to show some equitable reason therefor, before it will be reversed on the ground that no affidavit was filed showing the defendant was still alive, and that the debt was due and unpaid. 2. Same—where the judgment is entered, for too much. And when the judgment is within the ad damnum, laid in the declaration, it will not be reversed because it may appear to be for an amount greater than the sum due upon the note which was the basis of the confession, no application having been made in the court below to correct the error.