Lefor v. Jones

2 Citing cases

  1. CWIK v. CONDRE

    4 Ill. App. 2d 380 (Ill. App. Ct. 1955)   Cited 8 times

    A judgment entered by consent, although valid, derives its validity from the consent of the parties, not from adjudication, and is treated as a contract. Sims v. Powell, 390 Ill. 610; People ex rel. Nelson v. Joliet Trust Savings Bank, 315 Ill. App. 11; Lefor v. Jones, 338 Ill. App. 173. A promise based upon consideration of a benefit to a third person constitutes a valuable consideration.

  2. Berg v. Somlo

    108 N.E.2d 790 (Ill. App. Ct. 1952)

    [1-4] The rule seems well established that a judgment entered by consent cannot be reviewed by appeal or writ of error. Lefor v. Jones, 338 Ill. App. 173; Berkowitz v. Glickman, 347 Ill. App. 76; Dunlap v. Horton, 337 Ill. App. 106. In the case last cited, Dunlap v. Horton, the precise question presented here was determined adversely to defendant's contentions.