Taylor v. McLaughlin

Beleobd, J. It is difficult to tell whether the judgment rendered in this case is for want of appearance or for want of pleas. It purports to be a judgment nil dicit. If we regard it as such, then it is clearly erroneous; such a judgment could not have been entered with issues of fact existing and undisposed of. Gibson v. Smith, 1 Col. 7; Keeler v. Campbell, 24 Ill. 287. If, after filing his pleas, the defendant failed to appear and [376] participate in the proceedings, a jury should have been impaneled to try the issues and assess the damages. This precaution was not observed, and the judgment must be reversed. Stevens v. Jones, 1 Col. 67. Reversed.