Hodges Fiber Carpet Co. v. Hugro Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Hodges Fiber Carpet Co. v. Hugro Manufacturing Co.

203 Ill. App. 404, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 256

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedFebruary 9, 1917

DocketGen. No. 21,109

StatusPublished

This text of 203 Ill. App. 404 (Hodges Fiber Carpet Co. v. Hugro Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hodges Fiber Carpet Co. v. Hugro Manufacturing Co., 203 Ill. App. 404, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 256 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Depositions, § 34*—when will not be suppressed because of defect in notary’s certificate. The failure of a notary’s certificate to depositions taken before him subsequent to the time set for taking same to show an adjournment is a mere irregularity which is not sufficient to warrant suppression of the depositions in the absence of evidence tending to show injury or surprise of one of the parties thereby. 2. Depositions, § 35*-—when motion to suppress is too late. Where depositions were returned promptly and notice of their taking given to the opposite party’s attorney six months prior to trial, held that it was his duty to ascertain whether such depositions had been returned and to present a motion to suppress them before the case was called for trial, and it was then too late.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Depositions, § 34*—when will not be suppressed because of defect in notary’s certificate. The failure of a notary’s certificate to depositions taken before him subsequent to the time set for taking same to show an adjournment is a mere irregularity which is not sufficient to warrant suppression of the depositions in the absence of evidence tending to show injury or surprise of one of the parties thereby. 2. Depositions, § 35*-—when motion to suppress is too late. Where depositions were returned promptly and notice of their taking given to the opposite party’s attorney six months prior to trial, held that it was his duty to ascertain whether such depositions had been returned and to present a motion to suppress them before the case was called for trial, and it was then too late.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 Ill. App. 404, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodges-fiber-carpet-co-v-hugro-manufacturing-co-illappct-1917.