Sheppard-Strassheim Co. v. Nickas

Appellate Court of Illinois

Sheppard-Strassheim Co. v. Nickas

207 Ill. App. 370, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 669

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 9, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,915

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 Ill. App. 370 (Sheppard-Strassheim Co. v. Nickas) 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

Sheppard-Strassheim Co. v. Nickas, 207 Ill. App. 370, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 669 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Inasmuch as this record contains no order of court approving the bond, or authorizing the clerk to approve it, such as must be entered under either section 92 or 93 of the Practice Act (J. & A. 8629, 8630), which applies to appeals from the Municipal Court of Chicago as well as from other courts of record (Israelstam, v. United States Casualty Co., 272 Ill. 161), the appeal was not perfected, and must, in accordance with settled practice, be dismissed. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Hedrick, 69 Ill. App., 184, and cases cited.

But were the appeal properly perfected we could not consider the only point made, namely, that the affidavit of defense was erroneously stricken and judgment entered by default, because the motion and decision of the court thereon are not preserved in the bill of exceptions, thus not enabling us to determine the ground of the court’s action, which otherwise is presumptively correct. (Jones v. Roberts, 188 Ill. App. 609; Gaynor v. Hibernia Sav. Bank, 166 Ill. 577, and cases cited.)

Appeal dismissed.

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.

Inasmuch as this record contains no order of court approving the bond, or authorizing the clerk to approve it, such as must be entered under either section 92 or 93 of the Practice Act (J. & A. 8629, 8630), which applies to appeals from the Municipal Court of Chicago as well as from other courts of record (Israelstam, v. United States Casualty Co., 272 Ill. 161), the appeal was not perfected, and must, in accordance with settled practice, be dismissed. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Hedrick, 69 Ill. App., 184, and cases cited.

But were the appeal properly perfected we could not consider the only point made, namely, that the affidavit of defense was erroneously stricken and judgment entered by default, because the motion and decision of the court thereon are not preserved in the bill of exceptions, thus not enabling us to determine the ground of the court’s action, which otherwise is presumptively correct. (Jones v. Roberts, 188 Ill. App. 609; Gaynor v. Hibernia Sav. Bank, 166 Ill. 577, and cases cited.)

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 Ill. App. 370, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheppard-strassheim-co-v-nickas-illappct-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack