Houswerth v. Seidel
| Decision Date | 12 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 49105 |
| Citation | 197 N.E.2d 271,47 Ill.App.2d 112 |
| Parties | Frieda HOUSWERTH, Harriet Sikorowski and Raymond Wey, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Judge Charles G. SEIDEL, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Eisenberg & Baikoff, Chicago, for appellants.
Seidner & Seidner, Chicago, for appellee.
This is an action on mandamus brought by the three petitioners-appellants to compel the respondent, Judge Charles G. Seidel, to approve an appeal bond from the Probate Court of Cook County to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court dismissed the petition for the writ of mandamus. The petitioners moved to vacate the order, the court denied the motion and the petitioners have appealed.
The history of this case began with the death of Julia Oppenheim on June 25, 1960. Her will, dated April 3, 1959, named Joseph Perrye as executor. The will was filed in the Probate Court of Cook County June 30, 1960, but no immediate action was taken in reference to it. A second will, dated June 20, 1960, was filed subsequently in the same court and Irving Eisenberg, one of the two attorneys for the petitioners (who are nonresidents of Illinois), was appointed administrator with the will annexed. A month later Perrye petitioned for Eisenberg's removal as administrator, for the admission of the 1959 will to probate and for letters testamentary.
After several hearings were held, attorney Eisenberg was removed as administrator, the orders pertaining to the will of 1960 were vacated, the 1959 will was admitted to probate and Perrye was confirmed as executor. The petitioners moved to vacate the order appointing Perrye. On April 28, 1961, the motion to vacate the appointment was denied.
On May 23, 1961, an appeal bond to the Circuit Court was presented to the respondent, Judge Charles G. Seidel, a judge of the Circuit Court of Illinois, who was the acting judge of the Probate Court of Cook County. Judge Seidel wrote on the bond: 'This Bond Proferred this day and disapproved.'
A petition for a writ of mandamus was then filed in the Circuit Court to compel the respondent to approve the bond. An injunction was also prayed for in the same petition to restrain the Probate Court from further proceedings in the case and to enjoin further action on an order previously entered by that court which directed Eisenberg to turn over to Perrye estate funds in his possession. The motion for the restraining order was denied.
The original petition in mandamus was followed by amended petitions, motions to dismiss, motions to strike, answers, replies and affidavits in support of the various motions, answers and replies. Finally, the case became at issue and was tried on September 10, 1962. The issues joined in the pleadings were these:
(1) whether the petitioners had presented their bond for approval or had attempted to file it on other dates which were within the 20-day limitation;
(2) whether, within the 20-day period, the petitioners had sought or had been allowed extensions of time in which to file the bond;
(3) whether the respondent willfully refused to perform a ministerial act or whether his disapproval of the bond was an exercise of his judicial discretion;
(4) whether the respondent was justified in not approving the bond because:
(a) he had no jurisdiction to approve the bond under section 330 of the Probate Act (ch. 3, Ill.Rev.Stat., 1959), since it was presented to him on May 23, 1961, more than 20 days after April 28, 1961, when the orders were entered from which the appeal was taken;
(b) no appeal had been taken from the orders admitting the 1959 will to probate and appointing Perrye as executor of that will;
(c) the orders sought to be appealed were neither final nor appealable;
(d) the appeal was being taken to the Circuit Court but, if the orders were appealable at all, the appeal should have been directed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, and
(e) to approve the bond would have been a useless act because the appeal would necessarily have to be dismissed when it reached the Circuit Court.
The trial court found for the respondent and entered the following judgment order:
'This cause coming on to be heard upon the trial of the above entitled cause upon the 2nd Amended Petition of Petitioners praying for a Writ of Mandamus, the Answer of Respondent and the Reply of the Petitioners to said Answer, all upon due notice to all parties, and the Court having heard the evidence upon the issues and the arguments of counsel and being further fully advised in the premises;
On September 20, 1962, the petitioners asked leave to file and make part of the record certain documents of the Probate Court which had been part of the proceedings out of which the request for mandamus arose. The reason given therefor was that these documents had been examined by the court at the trial on September 10th. The petitioners also attempted to file an affidavit of attorney Eisenberg and his partner attorney Paul I. Baikoff. The court permitted the exhibits to be filed but rejected the affidavit.
On October 3rd, the petitioners moved to vacate the judgment order of September 10th or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The motion was based, principally, upon the exhibits and upon the court's rejection of the affidavit. It was contended that the exhibits of themselves established the right to a writ of mandamus and that the refusal to admit the affidavit into evidence was error. The court denied the motion. The same contentions are made in this appeal.
The exhibits do not disclose that any extension of time was granted the petitioners within 20 days of April 28, 1961,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ganley v. City of Chicago
...show a clear legal right to the relief requested. Lenit v. Powers (1969), 120 Ill.App.2d 411, 257 N.E.2d 142; Houswerth v. Seidel (1964), 47 Ill.App.2d 112, 197 N.E.2d 271. At best, Ganley's legal right to the relief he sought was questionable, and the writ of mandamus should not have been ......
-
People ex rel. Shell Oil Co. v. City of Chicago
...to the relief requested. People ex rel. Gustafson v. Calumet City, 101 Ill.App.2d 8, 241 N.E.2d 512 (1968); Houswerth v. Seidel, 47 Ill.App.2d 112, 197 N.E.2d 271 (1964). This may be ascertained through the application of equitable principles. People ex rel. Harty v. Gulley, 2 Ill.App.2d 32......
-
Oppenheim's Estate, In re
...petitioners to show that they had filed their appeal bond within 20 days. An appeal to this court was unsuccessful (Houswerth v. Seidel, 47 Ill.App.2d 112, 197 N.E.2d 271, opinion filed March 12, 1964), and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was later An inventory was filed and approved o......
-
Oppenheim's Estate, In re
... ... A mandamus petition to compel the acceptance of the bond was denied. An appeal to this court was unsuccessful (Houswerth v. Seidel, 47 Ill.App.2d 112, 197 N.E.2d 271, opinion filed March 12, 1964), and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was denied ... ...