Cook County

  • County Seat:
    Chicago
  • Area:
    954 square miles
  • Population:
    10,201 (1840 census) - 5,194,675 (2010 census)
  • Named for:
    Daniel Pope Cook, Illinois Representative
  • Created on:
    January 15, 1831

Documents

Images

  • cook-Dobrovolny Collection-1909
  • Laura-Volkerding-Seagrams-County-Court-House-Archives-Library-of-CongressLC-S31-LV1-24
  • Library of Congress-LC-USZ62-116343
  • cookcountypostcard

Cases

Adams et al. v. Shepard

Adams sued Shepard in an action of replevin. The circuit court found for Adams but delayed judgment due to pending damages assessment. When Adams later sought a non-suit, the defendant contested, arguing it was after final determination. The Illinois Supreme Court determined the non-suit was permissible as material issues, particularly damages, remained unresolved. Thus, the lower court's judgment was upheld.

Justice(s):

Justice Pinkney H. Walker
View Details


Davidson v. Young et al.

David L. W. Jones died intestate in 1834, leaving land near Chicago. His administrator sold the land in 1837 to Newhall for his and Davidson's benefit, intending to fund Margaret Jones's education. Margaret consented as a minor but later disputed the sale. The Supreme Court ruled the administrator lacked authority to sell, voiding the sale. Davidson sought to estop Margaret from reclaiming the land, but the court found no basis for estoppel or ratification, dismissing his claim.

Justice(s):

Justice Charles B. Lawrence
View Details


Bristol v. City of Chicago

The appellant motioned to assign more errors after the argument began. The court deemed it untimely. They stated that such requests, made after arguments commence, are unacceptable without the defendant in error's consent.

Justice(s):

View Details


Pitts v. Leiter

On November 18th, 1859, judgments were entered in favor of Leiter and Magie concerning two judgment notes. Pitts sought to challenge the judgments, claiming they were entered without his knowledge. Affidavits presented conflicting accounts. The court should have allowed Pitts to defend himself, as the presented defense could hold merit. The court also criticized the sheriff's levy on personal property without first considering Pitts' real estate. The judgments were reversed.

Justice(s):

Justice John D. Caton
View Details


Carter v. Moses

In January 1861, Hiram P. Moses filed a chancery bill against Roswell Carter, Seth Wadhams, J. Young Seammon, and another party. Moses and Wadhams borrowed $3,000 from Carter in 1853, securing it with a deed of trust. Over time, they issued more notes, leading to a dispute. The court ruled in Moses's favor, declaring certain notes paid and ordering Carter to repay $570, but denied recovery of usurious interest. Carter appealed, but the decision stood. At the April term of 1865 a rehearing was requeseted, but subsequently refused.

Justice(s):

Justice Pinkney H. Walker
View Details


Kelly et al. v. Cecil Bank of Maryland

The Superior Court of Chicago heard two assumpsit actions, Kelly et al. v. Cecil bank of Maryland and Kelly et al. v. Downs, in 1860 over promissory notes. Despite identical proceedings, the appellants sought a venue change just before trial, citing prejudice. The court rightly denied the motion, deeming one day's notice insufficient and rejecting late affidavits. The appellants' tardiness and lack of justification mirrored precedent. Consequently, the court's decisions were upheld, affirming the judgment.

Justice(s):

Justice Sidney Breese
View Details


Stoutenburg v. Abbott and Wilcomb

Stoutenburg confessed judgment to a $455 debt to Abbott and Wilcomb. Stoutenburg appealed when he believed the confession was not proper, but the parties agreed to dismiss the appeal, and Stoutenburg withdrew his writ of appeal.

Justice(s):

View Details


Welsh et al. v. People

The court, having considered the matter, referred to Ex parte Welsh, and found no need to reevaluate the right to try the prisoners. Regarding alleged larceny through false pretenses, the court established that if the owner willingly relinquished possession and title to the goods, it amounted to fraud, not larceny. Instructions given by the court clarified distinctions crucial to the case, and objections raised by both parties were addressed appropriately. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed. 
Notes: case 003216/17 Ill 161 is part of this case.

Justice(s):

Justice John D. Caton
View Details


Aldrich et al. v. Dunham et al

Hinsdale and Dunham sued Aldrich, Medbury, and Smith for a debt on a book account in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas. The jury found for the Hinsdale and Dunham, and Aldrich et al appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment due to an incorrectly given jury instruction that Aldrich had to pay interest from the start of the suit. The Court added that mere defense in a suit does not warrant interest. 

Justice(s):

Justice Onias C. Skinner
View Details


Adams et al. v. Johnson

Johnson sued Adams and others regarding a note for Wood's patent shingle machine and rights assignment within certain districts. Adams presented two defenses: warranty breach and fraudulent vendor representations. The jury found for Johnson and Adams appealed the judgment. After reviewing the trial instructions and evidence, the Supreme Court found no error. The jury's verdict favored Johnson, supported by evidence. The alleged warranty lacked clear intention, and the vendor's statements weren't necessarily fraudulent. The jury's decision was justified. The judgment was upheld.

Justice(s):

Justice John D. Caton
View Details


Back to Directory