Gould v. Gould, No. 31659

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtSIMPSON
Citation97 N.E.2d 826,408 Ill. 526
PartiesGOULD v. GOULD.
Decision Date22 March 1951
Docket NumberNo. 31659

Page 826

97 N.E.2d 826
408 Ill. 526
GOULD

v.
GOULD.
No. 31659.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
March 22, 1951.

Page 827

Harry A. Biossat, of Chicago, and Henry I. Green, of Urbana, for appellants.

Benjamin B. Davis and Joseph W. Baer, both of Chicago, for appellee.

SIMPSON, Chief Justice.

Appellant, defendant in the superior court of Cook County, appealed to the Appellate Court from an order entered on October 18, 1948, vacating nunc pro tunc one entered April 14, 1948, which dismissed the complaint in the original cause of action for want of prosecution. The appellate Court reversed the nunc pro tunc order of the trial court. Leave to appeal has been granted to review that judgment.

Appellant's wife, the appellee, filed suit for divorce against him in the superior court of Cook County on June 22, 1945. On June 4, 1946, the cause was placed on the [408 Ill. 527] trial calendar with John S. Boyle appearing as attorney for appellant. After numerous continuances, the cause reached the contested calendar on January 8, 1948. April 14 of the same year an order was entered dismissing the cause for want of prosecution. October 18 following, the superior court entered an order, nunc pro tunc as of April 14, 1948, vacating the one which dismissed the cause for want of prosecution. An appeal from that order was taken to the Appellate Court where the nunc pro tunc order was reversed.

May 4, 1948, John S. Boyle filed a motion to withdraw as appellant's attorney. Notice of the motion was given to appellant by mail. After one continuance the motion to permit the withdrawal of counsel was allowed on May 18, 1948. The order recited that it was entered without prejudice to any of the pleadings in the cause or to the hearing date previously set. Thereafter, the cause was continued to June 15, 1948, and notice given to appellant by mail but he did not appear either personally or by other counsel. A hearing was had on the merits of the case and a decree of divorce entered on July 2, 1948. The decree reserved jurisdiction for the purpose of determining the questions of alimony and support for children, suit money, and appellee's claim against appellant for the return of a sum of money claimed to be due her. No appeal was taken from that decree.

Some time after the decree of divorce was entered it was discovered that the cause had been previously dismissed on April 14, 1948. On October 7, 1948, appellee filed a motion to vacate the dismissal order of April 14, 1948, nunc pro tunc. This motion was supported by an affidavit of counsel for appellee which stated that the parties had appeared before the court on April 14, 1948, and advised the court that the cause was on the trial calendar; that the court thereupon ordered the cause stricken from the no-progress calendar and transferred to the divorce calendar; [408 Ill. 528] that through misprision of the clerk of the court an order was entered dismissing the cause for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., No. 37795
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 18 Marzo 1964
    ...to these two defendants and see no beneficial purpose in repetition or further analysis of those phases of the litigation. Gould v. Gould, 408 Ill. 526, 97 N.E.2d 826; Kamienski Page 773 v. Bluebird Air Service, Inc., 389 Ill. 462, 59 N.E.2d 853. The substance of plaintiffs' complaint again......
  • Material Service Corp. v. Department of Revenue, No. 56773
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 21 Octubre 1983
    ...by the lower court that is on appeal to a court of review. (Rabus v. Calcari (1959), 16 Ill.2d 99, 156 N.E.2d 567; Gould v. Gould (1951), 408 Ill. 526, 97 N.E.2d 826.) The reviewing court is not bound to accept the reasons given by the trial court for its judgment (Weber v. Woods (1975), 31......
  • York v. Stiefel, No. 57489
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 16 Diciembre 1983
    ...function of this court is to review the judgment appealed from and not pass on the form of the opinion involved. (Gould v. Gould (1951), 408 Ill. 526, 529, 97 N.E.2d 826; Merlo v. Public Service Co. (1942), 381 Ill. 300, 321, 45 N.E.2d 665; Stanton v. Chicago City Ry. Co. (1918), 283 Ill. 2......
  • Roulette v. State Human Rights Com'n, No. 1-92-0448
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 29 Diciembre 1993
    ...by the lower court that is on appeal to a court of review. (Rabus v. Calcari (1959), 16 Ill.2d 99 [156 N.E.2d 567]; Gould v. Gould (1951), 408 Ill. 526, 97 N.E.2d 826.) The reviewing court is not bound to accept the reasons given by the trial court for its judgment (Weber v. Woods (1975), 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., No. 37795
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 18 Marzo 1964
    ...to these two defendants and see no beneficial purpose in repetition or further analysis of those phases of the litigation. Gould v. Gould, 408 Ill. 526, 97 N.E.2d 826; Kamienski Page 773 v. Bluebird Air Service, Inc., 389 Ill. 462, 59 N.E.2d 853. The substance of plaintiffs' complaint again......
  • Material Service Corp. v. Department of Revenue, No. 56773
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 21 Octubre 1983
    ...by the lower court that is on appeal to a court of review. (Rabus v. Calcari (1959), 16 Ill.2d 99, 156 N.E.2d 567; Gould v. Gould (1951), 408 Ill. 526, 97 N.E.2d 826.) The reviewing court is not bound to accept the reasons given by the trial court for its judgment (Weber v. Woods (1975), 31......
  • York v. Stiefel, No. 57489
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 16 Diciembre 1983
    ...function of this court is to review the judgment appealed from and not pass on the form of the opinion involved. (Gould v. Gould (1951), 408 Ill. 526, 529, 97 N.E.2d 826; Merlo v. Public Service Co. (1942), 381 Ill. 300, 321, 45 N.E.2d 665; Stanton v. Chicago City Ry. Co. (1918), 283 Ill. 2......
  • Roulette v. State Human Rights Com'n, No. 1-92-0448
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 29 Diciembre 1993
    ...by the lower court that is on appeal to a court of review. (Rabus v. Calcari (1959), 16 Ill.2d 99 [156 N.E.2d 567]; Gould v. Gould (1951), 408 Ill. 526, 97 N.E.2d 826.) The reviewing court is not bound to accept the reasons given by the trial court for its judgment (Weber v. Woods (1975), 3......
  • 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