Staude v. Schumacher

58 N.E. 318, 187 Ill. 187
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 19, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 58 N.E. 318 (Staude v. Schumacher) 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
Staude v. Schumacher, 58 N.E. 318, 187 Ill. 187 (Ill. 1900).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Hand

delivered the opinion of the court:

The complainants filed a bill in chancery in the circuit court of Washington county, “the single object of which,” as stated in their brief filed in this court, “is to cancel the last will and testament of Robert Staude, deceased, to set aside the probate thereof and distribute the estate of said Robert Staude according to law.” The court sustained a demurrer thereto, and the complainants electing to stand by their bill, a decree was entered dismissing the bill, and for costs. This writ of error is sued out to reverse such decree.

In conflict with the complainants’ brief the abstract states: “The prayer of the bill is in the usual form in such cases, and asks for the cancellation of the will and codicils of said Augustus Staude, deceased.” The exhibits attached to the bill are not abstracted, the abstract contains no assignment of error and is not indexed.

The rules of this court require the party bringing a cause into this court to furnish a complete abstract or abridgment of the record, properly indexed,—such an abstract as will fully present every error and exception relied upon, and sufficient for the examination and determination of the case without an examination of the written record. In the case of Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18, we said (p. 22): “It is the duty of parties bringing cases here for review to prepare and file complete abstracts of the record in accordance with the rules, and such abstracts as we can safely rely upon. It is not our duty to perform this work of counsel, which, in detail, as to them is inconsiderable, but when imposed upon us is, in the aggregate, extremely burdensome.”

The decree must be affirmed for want of a complete abstract. We have, however, carefully read the briefs, from which it appears there is no substantial error in the decree, and no error which, in the present state of the record, can be availed of by plaintiffs in error.

The decree will be affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

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

Related

Clinton v. Drainage Commissioners of Drainage District No. 7
173 N.E. 108 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1930)
Hardy v. Dobler
248 Ill. App. 361 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1928)
Zinkl v. Aluminum Co. of America
169 Ill. App. 191 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1912)
Hays v. Feather
91 N.E. 97 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1910)
Patterson v. Northern Trust Co.
87 N.E. 843 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1909)
Inman v. Miller
84 N.E. 935 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1908)
Buck v. Casper
140 Ill. App. 278 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1908)
Gay v. City of Chicago
81 N.E. 1021 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1907)
Brown v. Otrich
119 Ill. App. 136 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1905)
Johnson v. Hartman
119 Ill. App. 206 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1905)
City of Elgin v. Nofs
113 Ill. App. 618 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1904)
Mayer v. Schneider
112 Ill. App. 628 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1904)
Hickox v. City of Springfield
69 N.E. 846 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1904)
Kiesewetter v. Supreme Tent of the Knights of the Maccabees of the World
112 Ill. App. 48 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1904)
Grabill v. Ren
110 Ill. App. 587 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)
Home Guardian of America v. Holt
108 Ill. App. 578 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)
Marsh v. Jones
106 Ill. App. 577 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)
Douglass v. Miller
102 Ill. App. 345 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1902)
Traeger v. Mutual Building & Loan Ass'n
59 N.E. 544 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 N.E. 318, 187 Ill. 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staude-v-schumacher-ill-1900.