Smedley v. American Engineering & Construction Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Smedley v. American Engineering & Construction Co.

181 Ill. App. 461, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 289

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 24, 1913

DocketGen. No. 17,679

StatusPublished

This text of 181 Ill. App. 461 (Smedley v. American Engineering & Construction 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

Smedley v. American Engineering & Construction Co., 181 Ill. App. 461, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 289 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff in error raises only one question, namely, whether the plaintiff below proved an “account stated,” but this and all other errors assigned must rest upon the proceedings had at the trial. The transcript of them shows that" the so-called “bill of exceptions” was not signed by the trial judge or filed in the timé required by law.

It was a case of the fourth class. The judgment was rendered May 23, 1911. No stenographic report or bill of exceptions, as it is called in the record, was signed or filed within thirty days thereafter as required to be done under paragraph 6 of section 23 of the Municipal Court Act, nor was any extension of time for filing the same granted by the court within that period; hence the court lost jurisdiction to sign or enter an order thereafter with reference thereto. Lassers v. North-German Steamship Co., 244 Ill. 570.

An order was entered June 23rd, thirty-one days thereafter upon a stipulation -of the parties, extending the time to file said “bill of exceptions.” But the jurisdiction of the court could not be restored nor the provisions of the statute waived by stipulation. Wurlitzer Co. v. Dickinson, 247 Ill. 27; Haines v. Knowlton Danderine Co., 248 Ill. 259.

The motion of defendant in error to strike the transcript of the proceedings from the files will be granted, and there being no record of what we are asked to consider, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed:

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

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff in error raises only one question, namely, whether the plaintiff below proved an “account stated,” but this and all other errors assigned must rest upon the proceedings had at the trial. The transcript of them shows that" the so-called “bill of exceptions” was not signed by the trial judge or filed in the timé required by law.

It was a case of the fourth class. The judgment was rendered May 23, 1911. No stenographic report or bill of exceptions, as it is called in the record, was signed or filed within thirty days thereafter as required to be done under paragraph 6 of section 23 of the Municipal Court Act, nor was any extension of time for filing the same granted by the court within that period; hence the court lost jurisdiction to sign or enter an order thereafter with reference thereto. Lassers v. North-German Steamship Co., 244 Ill. 570.

An order was entered June 23rd, thirty-one days thereafter upon a stipulation -of the parties, extending the time to file said “bill of exceptions.” But the jurisdiction of the court could not be restored nor the provisions of the statute waived by stipulation. Wurlitzer Co. v. Dickinson, 247 Ill. 27; Haines v. Knowlton Danderine Co., 248 Ill. 259.

The motion of defendant in error to strike the transcript of the proceedings from the files will be granted, and there being no record of what we are asked to consider, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 Ill. App. 461, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smedley-v-american-engineering-construction-co-illappct-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack