Field v. Kenneweg
| Decision Date | 20 December 1905 |
| Citation | 218 Ill. 366,75 N.E. 986 |
| Parties | FIELD v. KENNEWEG et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Branch Appellate Court, First District.
Bill by Marshall Field against Christian F. Kenneweg and others. Decree for plaintiff, and from an order of the Appellate Court, dismissing the writ of error, as to certain plaintiffs in error, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Holt, Wheeler & Sidley, for appellant.
Franklin L. Chase (Colin C. H. Fyffe and Edmund D. Adcock, of counsel), for appellees.
The appellant, on the 3d day of January, 1894, filed four bills in chancery in the circuit court of Cook county to foreclose four separate trust deeds, all executed by Howard Butcher on June 7, 1890, upon contiguous parcels of land located in the village of Western Springs, in said county. The cases were subsequently consolidated, and on July 13, 1900, a final decree of foreclosure and sale was entered in the consolidated case, under which a sale of the premises was made by the master, and his report of sale and distribution was confirmed on November 21, 1900. No appeal was taken from the decree of foreclosure and sale entered in the consolidated case, but on February 12, 1903, a writ of error was sued out from the Appellate Court to review said decree by 11 of the defendants. Subsequently 7 other defendantsentered their appearance as plaintiffs in error and joined in the assignment of error of the 11 original plaintiffs in error and with them filed briefs. There were numerous defendants in the consolidated case, other than the 18 who assigned error upon the record, who declined to join in the writ of error. A severance was ordered as to such defendants, 226 in number, and they were brought in as plaintiffs in error by service of process, and on the 5th of March, 1905, an order was entered by the Appellate Court that, for want of an assignment of error upon the record as to those plaintiffs in error who had not assigned error, they be forever barred from questioning or impeaching the decree of the circuit court sought to be reviewed in that court by the writ of error. Afterwards the case was taken under advisement by the Appellate Court, and on May 5, 1905, the 18 plaintiffs in error who had filed briefs obtained an extension of time in which to file reply briefs, and on June 23, 1905, a motion was made in the Appellate Court on behalf of ‘certain plaintiffs in error’ who were not specifically named ‘that the writ be dismissed without prejudice to the starting of further suit.’ That motion was denied, and on July 13th following, which was within one day of five years from the date upon which the decree of foreclosure and sale was entered in the circuit court in the consolidated case, the 18 plaintiffs in error who were actively prosecuting said writ moved the Appellate Court ‘that the said writ be dismissed as to them,’ and over...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Waite v. Bristow
...to dismiss his appeal, regardless of the protest of the appellee. Vincent v. McElvain, 304 Ill. 160, 136 N.E. 502;Field v. Kenneweg, 218 Ill. 366, 75 N.E. 986;Granat v. Kruse, 213 Ill. 328, 72 N.E. 744;Maplewood Coal Co. v. Phillips, 206 Ill. 451, 69 N.E. 514. The appellant in an appeal and......
-
Barrett v. Whitmore
... ... parties who desires to dismiss an appeal as to himself may do ... so. (4 C. J. 564; Field v. Kenneweg, 218 Ill. 366, ... 75 N.E. 986; Thorp v. Thorp, 40 Ill. 113.) Again, ... Patrick C. Barrett and Joseph E. Barrett do not question the ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank of Kewanee v. Union State Sav. Bank & Trust Co.
... ... Vincent v. McElvain, 304 Ill. 160, 136 N. E. 502;Field v. Kenneweg, 218 Ill. 366, 75 N. E. 986;Grant v. Kruse, 213 Ill. 328, 72 N. E. 744;Maplewood Coal Co. v. Phillips, 206 Ill. 451, 69 N. E. 514. The ... ...
- Brown v. People