People ex rel. Pardridge v. Windes

• Decision Date: 24 October 1916
• Docket Number: No. 10756.,10756.
• Citation: 113 N.E. 949,275 Ill. 108
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. PARDRIDGE v. WINDES, Judge, et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

275 Ill. 108

113 N.E. 949

PEOPLE ex rel. PARDRIDGE

v.WINDES, Judge, et al.

No. 10756.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 24, 1916.

Original petition for mandamus by the People, on the relation of Charles W. Pardridge, against Thomas G. Windes and another. Writ denied.

Bradley, Harper & Eheim, of Chicago (Thomas E. D. Bradley and Jacob Newman, both of Chicago, of counsel), for petitioner.

Henry S. Robbins, of Chicago, for respondents.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

This suit is an adjunct or appendage of an action brought by Alonzo J. Cutler against Charles W. Pardridge which the law terms transitory, but which has none of the transitory qualities attributed to temporal things. That action was begun in the circuit court of Cook county on June 17, 1893, and its first appearance in this court was 19 years ago. Pardridge v. Cutler, 168 Ill. 504, 48 N. E. 125. There have been four trials of the issues, and the plaintiff obtained verdicts and judgments on the first two, and the defendant succeeded in the last two. The first three judgments were reversed for prejudicial errors upon the trials. When the fourth judgment was rendered the action showed no signs of abatement or dissolution, but brought forth this additional suit in this way: On November 20, 1915, the plaintiff prayed an appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District, and the court granted the appeal and fixed the terms. The minute clerk attending the judge and the clerk of the court made entries in an abbreviated form of the order granting the appeal and fixing times for the bond and bill of exceptions. The court afterward directed the clerk, in spreading the orders on the record, to enter them in a certain prescribed form, which was done against the objection of the defendant, and on February 19, 1916, the plaintiff moved the court to expunge the order concerning the time for the bill of exceptions. The motion was continued to February 28, 1916, when it was denied, after which the defendant filed his petition in this court, in the name of the people, for a writ of mandamus commanding the judge to vacate and expunge from the record of the court the order concerning the bill of exceptions as entered by the clerk. Leave to file the petition was granted and process was ordered against Thomas G. Windes, the judge, and Alonzo J. Cutler, the plaintiff. The defendants filed an answer, and the relator, disregarding the rules governing pleadings in actions at law, filed a document in six paragraphs admitting or denying (and sometimes in the same paragraph) matters of fact alleged in the answer, and also making denials on which an issue of fact could never be formed.

We would not render any service to the parties to this suit nor to the bar by again explaining what has so often been made known through decisions of this court, that the same rules of pleading are applicable in mandamus as in other actions at law. Silver v. People, 45 Ill. 224;Board of Supervisors of Shelby County v. People, 159 Ill. 242, 42 N. E. 777;Dement v. Rokker, 126 Ill. 174, 19 N. E. 33;People v. Board of Education, 236 Ill. 154, 86 N. E. 206. The replication tenders issues of fact as to some matters that are immaterial. The cause has been submitted for a decision upon the pleadings, and the parties do not disagree as to any material fact. It also appears from the answer and admissions in the replication that the Appellate Court might exercise jurisdiction concerningthe matter in controversy, but this court having assumed jurisdiction, and the statute having provided that the existence of another specific legal remedy is not a bar to the action, we will not delay the parties, but will decide the case.

Upon the prayer for an appeal the minute clerk attending Judge Windes made the following entry in his minute book:

Judge Windes

Nov. 20, 1915.

116661 Cutler

Pardridge

Mo Plff N. T. Ovld Ex Mo. in Arrest of J ovld ex J. on Verd issues for Deft. Ex appeal Prayed & allowed 1st Dist Ill. B 250.00. Appr by Clk 30 days B of X 60 days.

The clerk of the court also made an entry on the court docket and the subsequent entries of January 18, January 29, and February 4, 1916, as follows:

Windes Nov 20-1915 Mo. Plff N. T. overld Ex Mo in arrest of J ovld Ex and J. on Verd. iss for Deft. Ex appeal Prayed and allowed 1st Dist. Ill. Bd. $250.00 Appr by Clk 30 days. B of X 60 days.

Windes Jany 18-16 time pltf fl. b of x extd 2/1/16

Windes Jany 29-16 time pltf fl. b of x extd 2/5/16

Windes Feb 4-16 Clk of ct. fl b of x nunc pro tunc as of 1/18/16 deft ex lv gvn either pty fl b of x 10 days.

On February 14, 1916, the clerk had not yet spread on the record the order of November 20, 1915, and the attorney for the plaintiff then presented to the judge a form of an order as a guide to the clerk in spreading the order on the record, and the order so presented concluded as follows:

‘Sixty days' time from this time is allowed the plaintiff in which to submit his bill of exceptions herein.’

The attorney for the defendant protested against the entry of the order in that form, and examined the deputy clerk as a witness, who testified that it was the practice in the office of the clerk, when writing out orders from minutes like the above, to use the word ‘file’ instead of ‘submit,’ and to write the order as follows:

‘Sixty days' time from this date is allowed the plaintiff in which to file his bill of exceptions herein.’

The only dispute was whether the word ‘file’ should be used instead of the word ‘submit,’...