Hayes v. Indus. Comm'n

Decision Date20 May 1943
Docket NumberNo. 27043.,27043.
Citation48 N.E.2d 940,383 Ill. 272
PartiesHAYES et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Circuit Court, Marion County; Josiah T. Bullington, Judge.

Proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act by H. C. Davis, claimant, opposed by W. R. Hayes and others, doing business as Midwest Oil & Gas Company, employers. There was an alleged judgment affirming an award of the Industrial Commission for claimant, and the employers bring error.

Writ of error dismissed.McKenna & Harris, of Chicago (James J. McKenna and James I. Holicky, both of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.

Maxine Woodruff and Hassel B. Smith, both of Mt. Vernon, for defendant in error.

SMITH, Justice.

On petition of plaintiffs in error, this court granted a writ of error to review a judgment of the circuit court of Marion county. The case arose under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Briefly, the facts show that defendant in error, H. C. Davis, lost a leg in an accident while ‘tailing in’ an oil well on a lease owned and operated by plaintiffs in error, doing business as Midwest Oil & Gas Co. The arbitrator made an award in favor of Davis for the loss of his limb. On appeal the Industrial Commission affirmed the decision of the arbitrator. It is alleged that the circuit court of Marion county confirmed the decision of the commission.

We are precluded from a consideration of the case on the merits, because no transcript of the record of the trial court has been filed showing the judgment sought to be reviewed, as required by Rule 60 of this court, Smith-Hurd Stats. c. 110, § 259.60. 370 Ill. 65. That rule provides that the application for writ of error in a compensation case shall be accompanied by a ‘complete transcript of the record of the trial court.’

Rule 36(2), Smith-Hurd Stats. c. 110, § 259.36(2), definitely sets out what the transcript of the record shall contain. 370 Ill. 39. It is elementary that where a party desires to have a judgment reviewed, it is incumbent upon him to present to this court a transcript of the record of the judgment sought to be reviewed. Knecht v. Sincox, 376 Ill. 586, 35 N.E.2d 68.

In Department of Finance v. Bode, 376 Ill. 374, 33 N.E.2d 586, 587, we said: ‘The court will not search the record to supply deficiencies in the abstract. Clinton v. Drainage Com'rs, 341 Ill. 135, 173 N.E. 108. Everything necessary to decide the questions raised on the appeal must appear in the abstract. Hooper v. Fox, 364 Ill. 613, 5 N.E.2d 217;Glassman v. Lescht, 318 Ill. 128, 149 N.E. 1;Bedinger v. May, 323 Ill. 187, 153 N.E. 822;Laird v. Dickirson, 241 Ill. 380, 89 N.E. 795. Rules of court are adopted to promote the work of the court and have the force of law. Gyure v. Sloan Valve Co., 367 Ill. 489, 11 N.E.2d 963. Failure of the abstract to properly present the errors relied upon warrants the court in affirming the judgment. Clinton v. Drainage Com'rs, supra.’

Where the abstract does not show any judgment entered by the trial court, the failure of a party bringing a case to this court to furnish a proper record and to properly abstract the same, so as to fully present the errors relied upon, is ground for affirmance. Department of Finance v. Sheldon, 381 Ill. 256, 44 N.E.2d 863; Department of Finance v. Bode, supra.

The only recital in the abstract which indicates any disposition of the case in the court below, is a docket entry which reads as follows: Court overrules motion to quash but sustains award of Industrial Commission, Sept. 29, 1942.’ It has been repeatedly held that a docket entry does not constitute a judgment. The transcript of the record on appeal must show a final judgment, and the failure to show such judgment in the transcript and in the abstract of the record, is ground for affirmance or dismissal. In Metzger v. Wooldridge, 183 Ill. 174, 55 N.E. 694,75 Am.St.Rep. 100, the record showed a docket entry as follows: ‘And, the court having heard the motion, court overruled same, and judgment on the verdict for $1,521.09.’ This was followed by a recital that an appeal was prayed by the defendants. It was held that this entry on the docket did not constitute a final judgment, reviewable by this court. The case was affirmed because the transcript did not show a final judgment from which the appeal was taken.

The same rule was announced in People v. Spies, 344 Ill. 586, 176 N.E. 732;People ex rel. Hicks v. O'Hair, 340 Ill. 206, 172 N.E. 45;People ex rel. Carr v. Seaquist, 327 Ill. 472, 159 N.E. 34, and People ex rel. Carr v. Mitchell, 325 Ill. 472, 156 N.E. 341. Here, no judgment sought to be reviewed is shown by the abstract. We have said many times that we would not search the record where the abstract was insufficient. However, in this case, a search of the record discloses an omission even more fatal. It discloses that the transcript filed in this court does not show any final judgment. The transcript filed here is in two separate parts, bound together under one cover. The first part consists of fourteen pages, numbered from one to fourteen, inclusive, with Roman numerals. This is followed by a certificate of the clerk. He certifies in this certificate that it is a ‘Transcript of judgment entered April 10, 1942, in favor of H. C. Davis, etc., v. Midwest Oil Co., etc., and Industrial Commission of Illinois, et al., etc., Case No. 42-44, as the same appears on the records and in the files now in my office remaining.’ This is followed by the original transcript filed in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Heavey v. Ehret
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 2 Febrero 1988
    ...to avoid dismissal of the appeal in Harris v. Annunzio (1952), 411 Ill. 124, 103 N.E.2d 477. (Accord, Hayes v. Industrial Comm'n (1943), 383 Ill. 272, 48 N.E.2d 940; Palefrone v. Shelton (1949), 337 Ill.App. 99, 85 N.E.2d 52 (abstract), appeal dismissed, 403 Ill. 628.) In the case at bar, r......
  • People v. Lazenby
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 11 Mayo 1949
    ... ... Department of Finance v. Bode, 376 Ill. 374, 33 N.E.2d 586;Hayes v. Industrial Com., 383 Ill. 272, 48 N.E.2d 940. An examination of the report of proceedings ... ...
  • People ex rel. Pickerill v. New York Cent. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 15 Noviembre 1945
    ...is well settled in this State that a docket entry by a trial court does not constitute a final appealable judgment. Hayes v. Industrial Comm., 383 Ill. 272, 48 N.E.2d 940;Metzger v. Wooldridge, 183 Ill. 174, 55 N.E. 694,75 Am.St.Rep. 100. This would seem particularly so here where there wer......
  • Gannon v. Indus. Comm'n
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 20 Mayo 1943
  • 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