Rowley v. Hughes

40 Ill. 71
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1866·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam: :

It is not according to the practice of the court to permit the transcript of the record to be withdrawn for the purpose indicated. The clerk below can copy the certificate of acknowledgment, and the deed itself, if that should appear necessary to show its identity with that now in the record, and attach the seal which has been omitted, and certify it accordingly.

Counsel then inquired if it would be necessary for a writ of certiorari to issue for the purpose of bringing up the additional transcript.

Per Curlam: : No writ of certiorari is necessary; the party interested in making the amendment can file it as an additional or amended record, and it will be considered in connection with the original transcript.

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

Rowley v. Hughes, 40 Ill. 71 (Ill. 1866).

40 Ill. 71 (Rowley v. Hughes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rubendall v. Tarbox
200 Ill. App. 260 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1916)
Vahle v. Brackenseik
34 N.E. 524 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1893)
Stebbins v. Anthony
5 Colo. 342 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1880)
Brooks v. Martin
64 Ill. 389 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1872)