Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co.

Decision Date25 March 1963
Docket NumberNo. 37527,37527
Citation190 N.E.2d 348,27 Ill.2d 609
PartiesSarah ELFMAN, Appellee, v. EVANSTON BUS COMPANY, Appellant.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Stephen Love, Chicago, for appellant.

SOLFISBURG, Chief Justice.

This appeal stems from an order of the municipal court of Evanston denying defendant's amended petition, filed 30 days after judgment time under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, c. 110, § 72, to vacate a $10,000 default judgment. The Appellate Court, after finding that defendant's counsel had been guilty of inexcusable neglect in failing to present a defense, affirmed the order of the trial court. (Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co., 36 Ill.App.2d 469, 184 N.E.2d 787.) We have granted defendant's petition for leave to appeal in order to further review the matter, and it may be stated at the outset that we are fully in accord with so much of the opinion of the Appellate Court which holds, first, that the issues on appeal are confined to those raised by defendant's amended petition, as amended, thus rendering superfluous and irrelevant plaintiff's arguments based on defendant's original, or superseded petition, and, second, that plaintiff's motion to strike the amended petition must be taken to have admitted all well-pleaded allegations of fact. (See: 36 Ill.App.2d 469, at 473, 184 N.E.2d 787, at 789.) The issue presented is whether the amended petition and its supporting exhibits and affidavits, not denied and therefore taken as true, adequately set forth sufficient facts to show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the petition.

Facts derived from the amended petition show that on September 6, 1958, the plaintiff, Sarah Elfman, while a passenger on a bus owned and operated by defendant, the Evanston Bus Company, was injured in a collision between the bus and a struck of the Wanzer Dairy Company. Later in the month she was exaimed by an orthopedic specialist, (to whom she gave a history of having been thrown with great force against a seat when a bus, in which she was standing, stopped suddenly,) and it was the doctor's diagnosis that she was suffering from (1) a whiplash injury superimposed on preexisting osteoarthritic changes, and (2) lumbrosacral strain superimposed on preexisting osteoarthritis. On October 21, 1958, plaintiff's attorney sent a copy of the orthopedist's report to defendant's attorney along with a letter expressing a desire that the matter be settled amicably. Later, in August, 1959, plaintiff's counsel wrote a letter referring to a prior telephone conversation and making a formal demand of settlement in the amount of $4500. The matter was next discussed by counsel over the telephone on September 1, 1959, at which time plaintiff's counsel represented that his client's medical bills totalled $259, and enumerated the bills included in such figure. Defendant's counsel, in turn, advised that he felt the settlement demand of $4500 was too high in view of the small amount of special damages.

Thereafter, on March 7, 1960, plaintiff's counsel initiated the present action in the municipal court of Evanston naming the bus company and Wanzer Dairy as defendants, and both were duly served with summons returnable March 22, 1960. Defendant, in accordance with its usual practice, sent its summons to its general counsel, the attorney who had been negotiating settlement. Neither defendant had filed an appearance by March 22 and, on that date, a default order was entered against both. In defendant's amended petition it is alleged that its counsel was preoccupied at the time with the fatal illness of his mother who succumbed from cancer on March 24, 1960, two days after the summons return date. Further, the petition alleges that counsel's mother had been seriously ill since December 1, 1959 having been hospitalized and operated on, that he was in daily attendance on his mother, and that she lapsed into an intermittent coma on March 12, 1960, which lasted until her death, all of which produced nervous and mental strain on counsel and distracted him from his normal practice of law.

On April 23, 1960, as the result of a stipulation between plaintiff and Wanzer, the default order was vacated as to Wanzer and the latter permitted to file its appearance and answer instanter. At the same time it was ordered that 'this cause be and the same is hereby postponed and set for pretrial conference on July 22, 1960.' Defendant's amended petition alleges that while its attorney was in the court on another matter shortly after April 23, 1960, he examined the docket in the clerk's office, noted the date set for the pretrial conference and later marked such date on a trial calendar maintained in his office, relying upon the entry in the clerk's docket as assurance that the matter could not be tried before July 22, 1960. Again, the petition alleges that the strain produced by his mother's death and the burdens placed upon him, caused counsel to overlook that he had not filed defendant's formal appearance.

The next events occurred on May 18, 1960, two months before the date set for pretrial conference, when, on plaintiff's stipulation and motion, an order was entered dismissing the cause as to Wanzer. On the same day, while a visiting county judge was sitting on the bench, and without notice to defendant, a jury was empaneled and after hearing evidence and argument on plaintiff's behalf, returned a verdict against defendant for $10,000, upon which judgment was entered. Defendant's amended petition alleges that its counsel, a member of the legislature, was on May 18, 1960, and for several days prior and subsequent thereto, in Springfield, Illinois, attending a special session of the legislature. Further, the petition alleges that at the ex parte trial on May 18, 1960, plaintiff introduced into evidence bills for hospital and medical expenses totalling $4,028.25, a portion of which were for services in connection with an operation for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
187 cases
  • Barney v. Suggs
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 2 Abril 1985
    ...has not been given adequate notice to allow an intelligent decision on the damage issue of his default. See Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co., 27 Ill.2d 609, 190 N.E.2d 348 (1963). In that circumstance, Rules 43.01(a) and 74.09 should be amended to require notice to the defaulting party prior to t......
  • Bank Of Am. v. 108 N. State Retail LLC
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 31 Marzo 2010
    ...as justice and fairness require.’ ” Vincent, 226 Ill.2d at 15, 312 Ill.Dec. 617, 871 N.E.2d 17, quoting Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co., 27 Ill.2d 609, 613, 190 N.E.2d 348 (1963). The court noted that this statement was accurate “when such relief was available under the common law writs. * * * W......
  • Paul v. Gerald Adelman & Associates, Ltd.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 19 Octubre 2006
    ...368, 499 N.E.2d 1381; Diacou v. Palos State Bank, 65 Ill.2d 304, 313, 2 Ill.Dec. 351, 357 N.E.2d 518 (1976); Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co., 27 Ill.2d 609, 610, 190 N.E.2d 348 (1963). The appellate court in the present case applied this standard. Nos. 1-04-0189, 1-04-0214 cons. (unpublished ord......
  • Salazar v. Wiley Sanders Trucking Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 26 Julio 1991
    ...41.) Plaintiffs failed to show due diligence in bringing the section 2-1401 petition. Lastly, plaintiffs rely on Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co. (1963), 27 Ill.2d 609, 190 N.E.2d 348, for the principle that despite a lack of due diligence, equity and justice require that their case be reinstated......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • 12 Agosto 2014
    ...Design & Mfg. v. Konopka , 272 Ill App3d 410, 649 NE2d 619, 208 Ill Dec 563 (1st Dist 1995), §§13:320, 16:46 Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co. , 27 Ill2d 609, 190 NE2d 348 (1963), §§31:122, 31:230 Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading, Inc. , 2005 Ill App LEXIS 414, §8:311 Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading, Inc., 3......
  • Default Judgment and Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • 12 Agosto 2014
    ...damages. [ Stotlar Drug Co. v. Marlow , 239 Ill App 3d 726, 607 NE2d 346, 180 Ill Dec 452 (5th Dist 1993); Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co. , 27 Ill 2d 609, 190 NE2d 348 (1963). See §31:123.] The right to be heard on the issue of damages means that the court does not have the discretion to act by......
  • Default Judgment and Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2018 Contents
    • 10 Agosto 2018
    ...damages. [ Stotlar Drug Co. v. Marlow , 239 Ill App 3d 726, 607 NE2d 346, 180 Ill Dec 452 (5th Dist 1993); Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co. , 27 Ill 2d 609, 190 NE2d 348 (1963). See §31:123.] The right to be heard on the issue of damages means that the court does not have the discretion to act by......
  • Default Judgment and Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Pretrial Practice - Volume 1
    • 1 Mayo 2020
    ...damages. [ Stotlar Drug Co. v. Marlow , 239 Ill App 3d 726, 607 NE2d 346, 180 Ill Dec 452 (5th Dist 1993); Elfman v. Evanston Bus Co. , 27 Ill 2d 609, 190 NE2d 348 (1963). See §31:123.] The right to be heard on the issue of damages means that the court does not have the discretion to act by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT