Reports of Cases at Law and in Chancery Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Illinois (2;v. 7)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1847. Excerpt: ... Francisco v. Wright. the opposing party. The refusal of an instruction is, for this reason, considered by the legal practitioner so decisive of his case, that it becomes with him, and justly too, a point of grave consideration, when and how to ask instructions of the Court. The distinction which is contended for by the counsel, if there be any, would be one as to the greater or lesser degree of error, committed by the Court; a distinction which the law does not, and, for obvious reasons, cannot recognize. The judgment of the Circuit Court must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. The appellees to pay the cost in this Court. Judgment reversed. Daniel Francisco, plaintiff in error, v. Levi Wright, defendant in error. Error to Shelby. A. purchased of B. a tract of land which had been mortgaged to C. who foreclosed the same, but A. was not a party to the bill of foreclosure. A. paid the incumbrance, B. having previously agreed to pay the mortgage, and sued B. in assumpsit, declaring upon the common money counts. It was not pretended that B. ever requested A. to pay the amount of the decree in the bill of foreclosure, or that he promised to re-imburse him for that payment: Held, that the action could not be maintained, there beir.g no promise, express or implied, to pay the amount to A. One cannot make another his debtor without his consent. Assumpsit in the Shelby Circuit Court, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error. The cause was heard before the Hon. Gustavus P. Koerner and a jury, at the August term 1845, when a verdict and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant. The material facts appear in the Opinion of the Court. J. A. McDovgall, and /. Gillespie, for the plaintiff in error. In this case, the promise ...