Mohler v. Wiltberger
Decision Date | 30 September 1874 |
Citation | 1874 WL 9098,74 Ill. 163 |
Parties | JOHN MOHLER et al.v.JOSEPH WILTBERGER. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. S. M. MOORE, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. HARDING, MCCOY & PRATT, and Mr. T. C. WHITESIDE, for the appellants.
Messrs. AYER & KALES, for the appellee.
The only question presented by this record is, whether a complainant may, before a hearing, dismiss his bill without prejudice. We understand the practice to be well settled that the complainant, at any time prior to a decree, has the right, unless a cross-bill has been filed, to control the fortunes of his own bill, and dismiss it, as a matter of course.
After a decree has been rendered, then the complainant cannot dismiss his bill, except by consent, for the reason that after decree others aside from the complainant have a fixed and definite interest in the subject matter in litigation in the cause, and hence have a right to be consulted before their rights shall be impaired by a dismissal of the bill.
The rule is well and clearly stated in Daniells' Chancery Practice, vol. 2, page 356, as follows:
It is, however, insisted that a decree had been rendered in this cause, and the motion of the complainant came too late.
It appears from the record before us that in 1866 a final decree was rendered in the cause, from which one of the defendants sued out a writ of error, and at the September term, 1870, of this court, the decree which had been rendered was reversed, and the cause remanded.
The effect of the judgment of this court left the cause pending in the court below for trial, precisely as if no decree had ever been rendered. This rule was announced in the case of Chickering v. Failes, 29 Ill. 294. The cause was governed by the same rule, so far as complainant's right to dismiss was concerned, as if no decree had ever been rendered therein. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Snow v. Duxstad
... ... ( Duxstad v. Duxstad, ... 100 P. 114 (Wyo.); Simmons v. Price, 18 Ala. 405; ... Harrison v. Trader, 29 Ark. 85; Mohler v ... Wilteberger, 74 Ill. 163; Coalfield Coal Co. v ... Peck, 105 Ill. 529; Sullivan v. Thomas, 6 Rich. (S ... C.) 201; People v. Bowe, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Potter v. Riley
...and an attempted dismissal is coram non judice and void. Warren v. Manwarring, 173 Mo. 21; Danforth v. Love, 53 Mo. 217; Mohler v. Wiltberger, 74 Ill. 163; v. Thwing, 9 Ind. 179; Lashley v. Hogg, 11 Vesey, Jr. 602; Clarkson v. Scrogins, 2 T. B. Monroe (Ky.) 52; Egg v. Devey, 11 Beavan 221. ......
-
State v. Riley
...judgment, then the order of dismissal should not have been entered, and, being entered at a later term, was coram non judice. Mohler v. Wiltberger, 74 Ill. 163; Long v. Thwing, 9 Ind. 179; Danforth v. Love, 53 Mo. 217. And, secondly, if the whole case was under submission and no final judgm......
-
Williams v. Breitung
...‘A plaintiff may move to dismiss his own bill with costs, as a matter of course, at any time before the decree.’ Again, in Mohler v. Wiltberger, 74 Ill. 163, it was said: ‘We understand the practice to be well settled that the complainant, at any time prior to a decree, has the right, unles......