assigned error in Illinois

2014Id. -3- 2014 IL App (2d) 140023 ¶9 The issue here is whether plaintiff’s jury demand filed with her initial complaint applies to the assigned claim against Mt.

2014Id. ¶9 The issue here is whether plaintiff’s jury demand filed with her initial complaint applies to the assigned claim against Mt.

1908The ruling was proper. '"A court cannot go outside of the declaration to ascertain the cause of action' Fish v. Farwell, supra.” From this court the plaintiff took an appeal to the Supreme Court, where our judgment was affirmed, the court saying: “First: Upon the face of the pleadings and without reference to extrinsic facts, it is manifest that the counts of the amended declaration, which plead specially the contract of insurance, set up a different cause of action from the count upon an account stated in the original declaration.

1905The ruling was proper. "“A court cannot go outside of the declaration to ascertain .the cause of action.” Fish v. Farwell, supra,.

1899“In VanBlaricum v. People, 16 Ill. 364 , a juror who had formed and expressed an opinion was accepted on the panel without objection, and this was assigned as error, but the court overruled the assignment, saying: ‘If the parties chose to have their cause tried by a prejudiced juror it was not for the court to refuse them the rig*ht. ’ The same is true in the case of an arbitrator.

1898In Van Blaricum v. The People, 16 Ill. 364 , a juror who had formed and expressed an opinion was accepted on the panel without objection, and this was assigned as error, but the court overruled the assignment, saying: “ If the parties chose to have their cause tried by a prejudiced juror, it was not for the court to refuse them the right.” The same is true in the case of an arbitrator.

2014Id. -3- 2014 IL App (2d) 140023 ¶9 The issue here is whether plaintiff’s jury demand filed with her initial complaint applies to the assigned claim against Mt.

1985People v. Cain (1979), 70 Ill.

1964The principal decision to be relied on is United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 , 94 L. ed. 653, which holds that the relevant test of validity of such a search is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was reasonable.

1963It was said in Anthony v. Gilbrath, 396 Ill 125, 71 NE2d 84 , “The word ‘hearing’ is a familiar term and is generally understood as meaning a judicial examination of the issues between the parties, whether of law or fact.

1956The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court (Voigt v. Anglo-American Provision Co., 202 Ill. 462 ), saying: “It is, of course, the bounden duty of the Appellate Courts to consider questions of fact properly presented and to correct errors of fact committed by the trial courts. . . .

1955Whether a case may be reopened for further evidence rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and it will not be interfered with unless clearly abused. ( People v. Kelly, 378 Ill. 273 ; People v. Lukoszus, 242 Ill. 101 .) The record before *592 us shows that the statement made by counsel to the court was not sufficient to motivate the court to reopen the case, and the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to do so.

1955Whether a case may be reopened for further evidence rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and it will not be interfered with unless clearly abused. ( People v. Kelly, 378 Ill. 273 ; People v. Lukoszus, 242 Ill. 101 .) The record before *592 us shows that the statement made by counsel to the court was not sufficient to motivate the court to reopen the case, and the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to do so.

1933Wilson v. King, 83 Ill. 232 ; Logan v. Mutual Life Ins.

1926The allegations in the search warrant in this case are the same as those in People v. Zalapi, supra, except that the premises in this case are described as a “dwelling house and basement and all outbuildings and entire premises located at and commonly known as 1316 South Church street, occupied by Albert Provenzano.” While the search warrant in this case is in-artificially drawn, the facts upon which the affiant based his belief as to the violations of law are the same as those stated in the affidavit for a search warrant in People v. Zalapi, supra, in which case the affidavit was held to stat

1926The allegations in the search warrant in this case are the same as those in People v. Zalapi, supra, except that the premises in this case are described as a “dwelling house and basement and all outbuildings and entire premises located at and commonly known as 1316 South Church street, occupied by Albert Provenzano.” While the search warrant in this case is in-artificially drawn, the facts upon which the affiant based his belief as to the violations of law are the same as those stated in the affidavit for a search warrant in People v. Zalapi, supra, in which case the affidavit was held to stat

1926Under the holding of this court in the case of People v. Tate, 316 Ill. 52 , both counts of the information are unquestionably good counts if the phrase “except as authorized in this act” had been omitted from the counts of the information.

1924Appellants base this assignment of error upon the holding in Clayton v. Clayton, 250 Ill. 433 , followed in Therens v. Therens, 267 Ill. 599 , and Hannah v. Meinshausen, 299 Ill. 529 .

1924In Petro v. Hines, 299 Ill. 236 , it is said: “Appellee, over the objection of appellant, was permitted to prove that deceased was a man of careful habits.

1915It is insisted by the appellee that the demurrer was properly sustained in accordance with the holding in the case of Vette v. Sanitary District of Chicago, 260 Ill. 432 , that in an action to recover damages for a temporary injury to real estate or a continuing trespass alleged to have occurred within five years a mere formal plea of the Statute of Limitations is not sufficient but special facts must be set up to show in what way the suit is barred.

1908In Droullard v. Baxter, 1 Scam., 191 , the court held “that a complainant has a right, considered unquestionable, to amend his bill before answer filed.” In Craig v. The People ex rel., 47 Ill., 487 , an amendment, before answer, was allowed to a bill for an injunction, and this was assigned as error, in respect to which the court say: “As to the propriety of allowing the amendment, nothing can be clearer, and it is the constant practice of courts of chancery to allow amendments, certainly before answer filed, and in many cases after and before replication is filed.” Ib., 492.

1908In Thomas v. Coultas, 76 Ill., 493, 496 , it is said that sworn bills are always allowed to be amended, to prevent a failure of justice, when a proper case is shown.

1907The attorney for the defendant, at the close of all the evidence, moved the court to instruct the jury to find for the defendant, and presented a written instruction to that effect; 'but the court refused so to do, and this is assigned as error. ■ Counsel for the plaintiff, in contending that the defendant waived his motion to take the case from the jury, by going to the jury on the merits, has evidently overlooked Union Traction Co. v. O’Donnell, 211 Ill. 349 , and other cases.

1905Appellee’s pleas of set-off, which stand for its declaration, were filed after the contract had expired by its terms and the trial was also had after that time, and upon the authority of Mount Hope Cemetery Ass’n v. Weidenmann, 139 Ill. 67 , the action of the court was proper.

1904Co. v. Anderson, supra, the trial court refused to instruct the jury to disregard certain counts of the declaration claimed to be faulty, and this was assigned for error in the Supreme Court.

1902“In cases where the evidence clearly justifies the finding, and it must have been the same had not certain incompetent evidence been admitted, the error in its, admission will be no ground for a reversal.” Jackson v. People, 126 Ill. 139 ; Williams v. People, supra. A motion was made by the plaintiff in error to rule the prosecuting attorney to furnish a bill of particulars, which was denied, and this is assigned for error.

1901(Haines v. People, 97 Ill. 161 ; Oder v. Putnam, 22 id. 38.) Upon the overruling of their motion to be discharged the defendants should have gone to trial, and if convicted they could then have sued out a writ of error from this court and assigned for error that ruling of the criminal court.

1899In Zarresseller v. People, 17 Ill. 101 , which was an indictment for a misdemeanor, we said: “The issue was tried by the court, by agreement of the parties in open court, and this is also assigned for error.

1899To have admitted the evidence would have been equivalent to permitting plaintiff in error to contradict by oral testimony the terms of the written guaranty, and, in effect, to deny its execution, which, under section 33 of the practice act, could not be done in the absence of a plea denying the execution verified by affidavit. 3 S. & C.’s Stat., Ch. 110, par. 34; Martin v. Culver, 87 Ill. 49 ; Johnson v. Clover, 19 Ill.

1899In the case of Order of Mutual Aid v. Paine, 122 Ill. 625 , the following language is used: “ After the verdict was in, and pending a motion for a new trial, the court permitted plaintiff to file two additional counts to the declaration and this is complained of and urged as a ground for reversal.

1898A cross-bill between parties to the suit “ is to be regarded as an adjunct or part of the original suit, and the whole together as constituting but one case.” Fleece v. Russell et at., 13 Ill. 31 .

1898The plea and the demurrer are not abstracted, and we therefore do not consider the alleged error further than to say the action of the court seems to have been in harmony with Cassem v. Galvin, 58 Ill.