Biggs v. Spader
| Decision Date | 27 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 31996,31996 |
| Citation | 103 N.E.2d 104,411 Ill. 42 |
| Parties | BIGGS v. SPADER et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
E. J. Biggs, of Chicago, pro se.
No appearance for appellees.
This action had its beginning in the superior court of Cook County when Eusebius J. Biggs, individually and as the assignee of the E. J. Biggs Construction Co., filed an action to foreclose a mechanics lien together with a separate law count embracing money allegedly due for items furnished in connection with the erection of a home for Walter Spader and his wife, who were named as defendants. Biggs, who is a general contractor by profession, appears pro se in this court, just as he did in the trial court, and has filed a brief which is obviously of his own composition.
The appeal to this court purports to be from several orders entered by the trial court in the course of preliminary hearings on the pleadings, yet none of such orders are complained of in the errors relied upon for reversal. The errors assigned, rather, ranged from argumentative statements charging judges of the trial court and of the Appellate Court with prejudice and libel, to extremely vague allegations that certain court rules and provisions of the Civil Practice Act have been violated. A reading of the brief fails to bring enlightenment as to whether there was a final and appealable order in this cause, whether there are any grounds which give this court jurisdiction on direct appeal, or whether appellant is seeking a review of the issues in the case of Biggs v. Schwalge, 341 Ill.App. 268, 93 N.E.2d 87, in which this court previously denied his petition for leave to appeal. The entire brief is presented in a manner that is ambiguous and arduous and does not present the issues sought to be determined in the orderly manner required to expedite and facilitate the administration of justice.
Rule 39 of this court (Ill.Rev.Stat.1949, chap. 110, par. 259.39) prescribes the manner in which the briefs of litigants shall present the issues to be reviewed to this court. The brief filed by the appellant, particularly with respect to the statement of errors relied upon for reversal, falls far short of being the clear statement of his case anticipated by the rule. This court has not only the inherent power to prescribe rules of practice and procedure, but has also has that power expressly conferred upon it by statute. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1949, chap. 110, par. 126.) Such rules, when established, have the force of law. Department of Finance v. Sheldon, 381 Ill. 256, 44 N.E.2d 863; Gyure v. Sloan Valve Co., 367 Ill. 489, 11 N.E.2d 963. It is obvious that some logical order for the presentment of the issues to be reviewed must be observed, and the bar, or others appearing before us, are presumed to be aware of the rules prescribed. Buckley v. Eaton, 60 Ill. 252. It is not the duty of this court to search the record to determine what the real issues in a contest are, nor to seek for material for the disposition of such issues. Village of Barrington v. Lageschulte, 323 Ill. 343, 154 N.E. 137. The failure to properly or informatively state the errors relied upon for reversal makes it impossible for a reviewing court to determine the issues sought to be raised and justifies dismissal of the appeal. Swain v. Hoberg, 380 Ill. 442, 44 N.E.2d 38. The order and manner in which a brief presents the issues is not jurisdictional, but, on the other hand, a reviewing court may determine whether or not its rules have been substantially complied with, and when there is a failure to comply with them, the appeal will not be entertained. To do so would nullify the rule. Gyure v. Sloan Valve Co., 367 Ill. 489, 11 N.E.2d 963. The appeal in the present cause must, then, be dismissed for failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 39.
Before entering the order of dismissal, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jung
...Currency Exchange, Inc. v. B. Coleman Corp., 56 Ill.App.3d 229, 232, 13 Ill.Dec. 577, 371 N.E.2d 294 (1977), citing Biggs v. Spader, 411 Ill. 42, 103 N.E.2d 104 (1951). Our appellate rules of procedure have the force of law, and this court has observed that "some logical order for the prese......
-
Doe By and Through Doe v. Montessori School of Lake Forest, 2-96-0407
...a tribunal are presumed to be aware of the rules of practice and procedure prescribed by the Illinois Supreme Court. Biggs v. Spader, 411 Ill. 42, 44, 103 N.E.2d 104 (1951). If the structure of our court system permitted loose practice, the result would inevitably be complete chaos. Alfaro,......
-
People v. Brumfield
...the court rather than one which rests in legislative grant. Cf. People v. Callopy (1934), 358 Ill. 11, 192 N.E. 634; Biggs v. Spader (1952), 411 Ill. 42, 103 N.E.2d 104, cert. denied, 343 U.S. 956, 72 S.Ct. 1051, 96 L.Ed. 1356 (1952). Assuming that Supreme Court Rule 234 reflects the courts......
-
Twardowski v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc.
...what legal issues are involved in an appeal. Bielecki, 264 Ill.App.3d at 354,202 Ill.Dec. 318,637 N.E.2d 1054, citing Biggs v. Spader, 411 Ill. 42, 103 N.E.2d 104 (1951). Rather, a reviewing court is entitled to have briefs submitted that present an organized and cohesive legal argument in ......