Opinion

Balsewicz v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad

  • 240 Ill. 238
  • 88 N.E. 734
Court
Illinois Supreme Court
Filed
Apr 23, 1909
Status
Published
Author
Farmervickers
On the bench
Dunn, Farmer, Hand, Scott, Vickers
Cited by
27 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.7%

The opinion

Farmer and Vickers, JJ., dissenting:

We cannot assent to the reversal of the judgment in this case on the grounds stated in the opinion. There are, as we understand the law, exceptions. to the general rule against collateral attack on judgments. Where a court, not having jurisdiction to appoint an administrator of the deceased, is induced by fraud to make the appointment, we think it is subject to attack collaterally in the interests of justice, and this view finds support in Sidensparker v. Sidensparker, 52 Me. 481 , Pisano v. Shanley Co. (N. J.) 48 Atl. Rep. 681 , Broughton v. Bradley, 34 Ala. 694 , and Harwood v. Wylie, 70 Tex. 538 .

In our opinion the judgment in this case should have been affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.