Donaldson v. Copeland
| Decision Date | 18 February 1903 |
| Citation | 66 N.E. 844,201 Ill. 540 |
| Parties | DONALDSON v. COPELAND. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to appellate court, First district; Jos. E. Geary, Judge.
Action by Maud L. Donaldson against William H. Copeland. From an order denying plaintiff's motion to vacate an order setting aside a default and vacating a judgment entered thereon, and dismissing plaintiff's action on her refusal to plead, she brought error to the appellate court (101 Ill. App. 252), where the writ was dismissed, from which she brings error. Affirmed.
McClellan & Spencer, for plaintiff in error.
J. W. Merriam and John Everett Holland, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error brought an action on the case against the defendant in error and four others to recover damages in the sum of $25,000, sustained, as the declaration alleged, by unskillful and negligent medical treatment. The declaration was filed 10 days prior to the first day of the April term, 1899, of the superior court of Cook county. At said April term the action was dismissed as to all the defendants except the defendant in error and D. G. Allender, the latter of whom had not been served with summons. Default was entered against the defendant in error for want of a plea, and damages were assessed against him by a jury impaneled for that purpose in the sum of $10,000, and judgment was entered against him in that sum. At the May term this judgment was ordered to be vacated, and the defendant in error was permitted to plead to the declaration. A number of pleas were filed under this order, and the cause was continued from term to term, until at the December term, 1899, the plaintiff in error entered her motion to vacate the order entered at the May term, 1899, setting aside the default entered at the April term, 1899, and vacating the judgment also entered at said April term. The ground of this motion was that the court at the April term, 1899, entered final judgment in the cause, and was without jurisdiction to enter further orders therein at a subsequent May term vacating such judgment. The court overruled the motion, and the cause was again continued, the pleadings not having been closed. The cause was continued regularly until the May term, 1900, at which time the plaintiff in error again moved the court to vacate the order entered at the May term, 1899, setting aside the default and vacating the judgment entered against the defendant in error at said April term under said default. The court overruled the motion, and, the plaintiff in error refusing to plead further and form issues by the pleading, the court dismissed her action for want of prosecution, and entered judgment against her for costs. A writ of error sued out by the plaintiff in error was dismissed by the appellate court for the First district. This is a writ of error sued out of this court to bring the judgment of the appellate court in review.
A court, at a subsequent term to that at which a final judgment has been entered, has no power to alter or amend such judgment, except in respect of mere matters of form, on a motion entered at such subsequent term. But if the motion to set aside or vacate the judgment be entered during the same term at which the judgment was rendered, and the cause be continued with such motion pending and undetermined, the court retains jurisdiction of the cause, and would have full power to act upon and decide the motion at the next term, and vacate the judgment at such subsequent term. Hibbard v. Mueller, 86 Ill. 256;People v. Springer, 106 Ill. 542. A supplemental transcript of the record was filed in the appellate court. It appears from this transcript that on the 17th day of April, 1899,—being as yet one of the judicial days of the April term, 1899, of said superior court,—the defendant in error filed in said court in this cause a written motion to set aside the default and judgment theretofore entered at that term against him in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corwin v. Rheims
...justice and right might require. Grubb v. Milan, 249 Ill. 456, 94 N.E. 927;Krieger v. Krieger, 221 Ill. 479, 77 N.E. 909;Donaldson v. Copeland, 201 Ill. 540, 66 N.E. 844. Subparagraph (7) of section 50 of the Civil Practice Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, s 174, subd. 7, provides that the court, an......
-
Barnard v. Michael
...cause shown, as justice and the right of the case might seem to require. Krieger v. Krieger, 221 Ill. 479, 77 N.E. 909;Donaldson v. Copeland, 201 Ill. 540, 66 N.E. 844;Shannahan v. Stevens, 139 Ill. 428, 28 N.E. 804. The statutes above referred to, enacted in 1933, substitute a period of th......
-
Grubb v. Milan
... ... Hibbard v. Mueller, 86 Ill. 256;Donaldson v. Copeland, 201 Ill. 540, 66 N. E. 844;People v. Springer, 106 Ill. 542. Such a motion pending and undetermined at the end of a term is continued to ... ...
-
In re Perry
... ... Sauer, 77 Ind. App. 22, 133 N. E. 169;State ex rel. v. McPike (Mo. App.) 243 S. W. 278;Stark Bros. v. Glaser, 19 Okl. 502, 91 P. 1040;Donaldson v. Copeland, 101 Ill. App. 252, 844;Id., 201 Ill. 540, 66 N. E. 844.It is true that no motion was filed in this case by any one a party to the ... ...