Miller v. Miller, 4-87-0691

• Citation: 118 Ill.Dec. 161,521 N.E.2d 229,167 Ill.App.3d 176
• Decision Date: 17 March 1988
• Docket Number: No. 4-87-0691,4-87-0691
• Parties: , 118 Ill.Dec. 161 Gerald MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald L. MILLER, d/b/a Miller Dry Wall, Defendant-Counterdefendant-Appellee. (Steve Horve & Bud Oleson, d/b/a Horve & Oleson Construction Company, Defendants-Counterplaintiffs-Appellees).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 229

521 N.E.2d 229 167 Ill.App.3d 176, 118 Ill.Dec. 161 Gerald MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Donald L. MILLER, d/b/a Miller Dry Wall,
Defendant-Counterdefendant-Appellee.
(Steve Horve & Bud Oleson, d/b/a Horve & Oleson Construction
Company, Defendants-Counterplaintiffs-Appellees). No. 4-87-0691. Appellate Court of Illinois,
Fourth District. March 17, 1988.

[167 Ill.App.3d 177] William O. Martin, Jr., Samuels, Miller, Schroeder, Jackson & Sly, Decatur, for Horve & Oleson.

Gregory A. Scott, Scott, Beeman & Scott, P.C., Springfield, for Donald Miller.

Presiding Justice GREEN delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff Gerald Miller filed a claim under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act (Act) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.) against defendants Donald Miller,

Page 230

[118 Ill.Dec. 162] d/b/a Miller Dry Wall (subcontractor) and Steve Horve and Bud Oleson, d/b/a Horve and Oleson Construction Company (contractors), for injuries he received while hanging dry wall in a building being constructed by the defendant contractors. The parties entered into a lump sum settlement contract on April 21, 1986, and plaintiff received payments from both the contractors and the subcontractors. On June 5, 1986, plaintiff filed a common law negligence action and an action under the Structural Work Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 48, par. 60 et seq.) against all defendants. The two counts directed against the subcontractor were dismissed pursuant to defendant's motion to dismiss, and judgment was entered on the two counts directed against the contractors pursuant to their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals both rulings. We affirm.

We note initially, defendants Horve and Oleson argue this court should dismiss the appeal, because plaintiff's brief failed to comply with Supreme Court Rules 341(e)(1) and 342(a). (107 Ill.2d Rs. 341(e)(1), 342(a).) Rule 341(e)(1) requires the "Points and Authorities" section of the brief include a reference to the page of the brief on which each heading and authority appear (107 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(1)). Rule 342(a) requires the appellant to include a copy of the judgment appealed from in the appendix to the brief. (107 Ill.2d R. 342(a).) These rules should have been followed. We note, however, that the rules are not a limitation upon the jurisdiction of a court of review, but rather are an admonishment to the parties. (Brown v. Brown (1978), 62 Ill.App.3d 328, 332, 19 Ill.Dec. 762, 765, 379 N.E.2d 634, 637.) Because we are affirming the dismissal, we will not strike the brief because of its infirmities.

The basis for both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary...