People ex rel. Carr v. Mitchell

Decision Date21 December 1927
Docket NumberNo. 18555.,18555.
Citation328 Ill. 206,159 N.E. 191
PartiesPEOPLE ex rel. CARR, County Collector, v. MITCHELL.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Application by the People, on the relation of Patrick Carr, County Collector, for judgment and order of sale of certain real estate for taxes, wherein Frank J. Mitchell filed objections. From an order of sale, objector appeals.

Reversed.

Appeal from Cook County Court; John D. Biggs, Judge.

Monahan & Monahan, of Chicago, for appellant.

DUNN, J.

At the June term, 1926, of the county court of Cook county, Frank J. Mitchell filed objections to the application of the collector for judgment and order of sale against certainreal estate for taxes, and appealed from an order that his objection be overruled. At the April term, 1927, of this court his appeal was dismissed because the transcript of the record filed in the cause showed no record of any final judgment, People v. Mitchell, 325 Ill. 472, 156 N. E. 341. A copy of the order dismissing the appeal was filed in the county court on May 7, 1927, and on June 29, 1927, an order of sale was entered, from which Mitchell has appealed.

The transcript filed on this appeal shows nothing in the cause prior to July 3, 1926, and shows on that day a general judgment against tracts, lots or lands, ordering sale of the premises described in the delinquent list. Neither the delinquent list nor the objections appear in the transcript. There is a bill of exceptions consisting of a colloquy between the court and counsel, by whom the opinion was expressed that a judgment had been entered by the county court before the appeal, but the transcript of the record taken to the Supreme Court did not show it. The colloquy continued as follows:

‘Mr. Monahan (Counsel for Objector): There is nothing this court can do. It has no jurisdiction to enter any order at all.

‘The Court: You enter the mandate.

‘Mr. Bell: This is our motion to docket it--

‘Mr. Monahan: Dismissing it.

‘Mr. Bell: In this court, and I would ask for order of sale in this case, your honor, this year.

‘Mr. Monahan: You can't do it; no judgment.

‘Mr. Bell: Oh yes, there is. We had judgment last year. We ask now for an order of sale. That is all we are entitled to ask for.

‘Mr. Monahan: There is nothing in any of the orders of this court retaining jurisdiction over anything in this case. The court has no jurisdiction to enter any order except file the mandate of the Supreme Court.

‘Mr. Bell: The appeal suspended the final judgment of the court last year.

‘The Court: I think so.

‘Mr. Bell: We ask for order of sale. We are not entitled to another judgment. Wh have a judgment. We ask for order of sale on the general judgment last year.

‘The Court: That will be the order. Order of sale.

‘Mr. Monahan: The objector objects to the order-takes exception to the order-the action of the court in entering such an order at this time. I would like exception noted.

‘The Court: The fact you didn't get proper judgment before the upper court wouldn't suspend the judgment that was entered. There was a general judgment entered in this court. You didn't get the proper record before the Supreme Court.

‘Mr. Monahan: The Supreme Court said no judgment entered.

‘The Court: The one you took up.

‘Mr. Monahan: I had the complete record made by the clerk of this court; the complete record, and found to be complete by the other side. They took no exception and made no point.’

[1][2] More conversation occurred, no evidence was introduced, and the objector appealed from the order of sale. The clerk of the county court certified that the transcript was a true, correct, and complete copy of general judgment, order mandate of Supreme Court, order allowing appeal, appeal bond, stipulation, and bill of exceptions in the cause....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Kankakee Park Dist. v. Heidenreich
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1927
  • People ex rel. Pickerill v. New York Cent. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1945
    ...where the very docket entry itself contemplates a subsequent formal draft order. Cases cited by appellee, such as People ex rel. Carr v. Mitchell, 328 Ill. 206, 159 N.E. 191, to the effect that the county court loses jurisdiction of a case after the expiration of thirty days from the entry ......

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