Becker v. Sauter
| Decision Date | 30 September 1878 |
| Citation | 1878 WL 10091,89 Ill. 596 |
| Parties | FRED. W. BECKERv.CHARLES SAUTER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN A. JAMESON, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of ejectment, to recover the possession of certain premises in Cook county. On the 25th day of November, 1874, a trial was had, and appellee, the defendant in the action, was found not guilty and judgment rendered against appellant for costs. On the 14th day of September, 1875, appellant applied for a new trial under the statute, and an order of court was entered in the cause as follows: “And now comes the said plaintiff, and pays into court all the accrued costs of suit; whereupon it is ordered by the court that a new trial be, and the same is hereby, awarded in said cause, pursuant to the statute in such case made and provided.”
On February 24, 1877, appellee entered a motion to set aside the order of September 14, 1875, granting a new trial, on the alleged ground that the costs had not in fact been paid. This motion the court, on hearing the affidavits produced, allowed, and appellant excepted and appealed. Messrs. BECKER & DALE, for the appellant.
Mr. J. R. CUSTAR, for the appellee.
The only question presented by the record is, whether the Superior Court, after the lapse of a year and five months, had the right to review and annul a former decision of the court.
During the term at which a judgment or decree may have been rendered, the court has control over the record, and, for cause appearing, may amend its judgments or decrees or set them aside. But after the expiration of the term at which a judgment is entered, the court has no power to make any substantial amendment or to set it aside. Cook v. Wood, 24 Ill. 295; Lill v. Stookey, 72 Id. 495; Coursen v. Hixon, 78 Id. 339.
The judgment granting a new trial was rendered by the court after being satisfied from the testimony that all costs in the case had been paid by appellant, as required by the statute. After the term had closed, this judgment, in so far as the matters passed upon and decided were concerned, became final. If the judgment was rendered upon a state of facts not authorizing such action, by the statute, appellee had the right to preserve the evidence upon which the court acted, in a bill of exceptions, and after the case was finally disposed of, the decision granting a new trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jansen v. Grimshaw
- Fuller v. Bates
-
People ex rel. Carr v. Omega Chapter of PSI Upsilon Fraternity
...98 N. E. 973, 254 Ill. 554;Barnes v. Henshaw, 80 N. E. 1076, 226 Ill. 605;Baldwin v. McClelland, 38 N. E. 143, 152 Ill. 42;Becker v. Sauter, 89 Ill. 596;Knox v. Winsted Savings Bank, 57 Ill. 330;Cox v. Brackett, 41 Ill. 222;Cook v. Wood, 24 Ill. 295. [2] Appellee points out that no bill of ......
-
Millard v. Cooper
...20 Johns. 501. As to the power of the court to amend its records: Lill v. Stookey, 72 Ill. 495; Robinson v. Brown, 82 Ill. 279; Becker v. Sauter, 89 Ill. 596; Goucher v. Patterson, 94 Ill. 525. Mr. E. M. HAINES and Mr. H. C. IRISH, for appellee; upon the power of the court to amend its reco......