Becker v. Sauter

89 Ill. 596
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 89 Ill. 596 (Becker v. Sauter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Becker v. Sauter, 89 Ill. 596 (Ill. 1878).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Craig

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The only question presented by the record is, whether the Superior Court, after the lapse of a year and five months, had the right to review and annul a former decision of the court.

During the term at which a judgment or decree may have been rendered, the court has control over the record, and, for cause appearing, may amend its judgments or decrees or set them aside. But after the expiration of the term at which a judgment is entered, the court has no power to make any substantial amendment or to set it aside. Cook v. Wood, 24 Ill. 295; Lill v. Stookey, 72 id. 495; Coursen v. Hixon, 78 id. 339.

The judgment granting a new trial was rendered by the court after being satisfied from the testimony that all costs in the case had been paid by appellant, as required by the statute. After the term had closed, this judgment, in so far as the matters passed upon and decided were concerned, became final. If the judgment was rendered upon a state of facts not authorizing such action, by the statute, appellee had the right to preserve the evidence upon which the court acted, in a bill of exceptions, and after the case was finally disposed of, the decision granting a new trial could be reversed in the appellate court on appeal or writ of error; but we are aware of no authority under which the judge or court rendering the decision could sit in review upon its own decision.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chicago Wood Piling Co. v. Anderson
39 N.E.2d 702 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1942)
People ex rel. Nelson v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank
281 Ill. App. 354 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1935)
Quigley v. Quigley
268 Ill. App. 130 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1932)
Merrifield v. Western Cottage Piano & Organ Co.
149 Ill. App. 1 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1909)
Schmidt v. Rehwinkel
86 Ill. App. 267 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)
Schmelzer v. Chicago Avenue Sash & Door Mfg. Co.
85 Ill. App. 596 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1899)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad v. Elder
36 N.E. 565 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1894)
Maple v. Havenhill
37 Ill. App. 311 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1890)
Schmidt v. Thomas
33 Ill. App. 109 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1889)
Cammeyer v. Durham House Drainage Co.
35 F. 51 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1888)
Ives v. Hulce
17 Ill. App. 30 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1885)
Grames v. Hawley
50 F. 319 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kansas, 1883)
Newman v. Newton
14 F. 634 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 Ill. 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-sauter-ill-1878.