People ex rel. Wonogas v. Holmes
Decision Date | 05 June 1924 |
Docket Number | No. 15441.,15441. |
Citation | 312 Ill. 284,143 N.E. 835 |
Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. WONOGAS v. HOLMES, Municipal Court Judge et al. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mandamus by the People, on the relation of Adam A. Wonogas, against George B. Holmes, Judge of the Municipal Court, and others.
Writ denied.
Slottow & Leviton, of Chicago (Charles Leviton, of Chicago, of counsel), for petitioner.
Lewis, Adler, Lederer & Kahn, of Chicago, for respondents.
The relator, Adam A. Wonogas, by leave of court has filed his petition for writ of mandamus against respondent George B. Holmes, one of the judges of the municipal court of the city of Chicago, commanding him to vacate and expunge from the records of said court an order entered by him February 27, 1923, purporting to amend nunc pro tunc a judgment entered December 4, 1922, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to enter the order. Sears, Roebuck & Co., plaintiff in the original cause, being interested, was also made a defendant to the petition. Relator demurred to the answers filed, and the cause is submitted for decision on the issue of law thus formed.
November 3, 1922, Sears, Roebuck & Co. brought an action in replevin in the municipal court against Adam A. Wonogas. November 15, Wonogas entered an appearance and filed an affidavit of merits. December 4, the cause was called for trial and Sears, Roebuck & Co. asked leave to file instanter a count in trover. Leave was granted and Wonogas was ruled to plead instanter. He was not present in court, and the court thereupon found that he was in default for want of appearance, and that he was guilty of maliciously and willfully converting to his own use the property of Sears, Roebuck & Co. with intent to defraud it. December 15 Wonogas was taken into custody on a capias theretofore issued. The following day a stay order was entered by one of the judges, and Wonogas filed his motion to vacate the order of December 4. December 20 there was a hearing on this motion, and the order of December 4 was vacated and set aside. Leave having been granted, Wonogas filed an amended affidavit of merits. December 26 the cause came on for trial, and Sears, Roebuck & Co. entered a motion that the order of December 20, vacating the order of December 4, be vacated and set aside. This motion was denied, and the cause was dismissed for want of prosecution. From this order of dismissal an appeal was prayed to the Appellate Court. January 3, 1923, Sears, Roebuck & Co. made a motion to amend the order of December 4, 1922, so that it would show that judgment was entered on an exparte hearing, which was the fact. February 27 this motion was considered, and the order challenged by this proceeding was entered.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Vara
...a basis for the amendment." Moreover, such corrections may be made at any time. As this court explained in People ex rel. Wonogas v. Holmes , 312 Ill. 284, 286, 143 N.E. 835 (1924) :"Whether it is a misprision of the clerk or a malfeasance , the court has power at all times, upon notice giv......
-
People ex rel. Carlstrom v. Shurtleff
...certiorari or an appeal. Eisen v. Zimmer, supra; People v. Petit, supra; People v. Smith, supra; People v. LaBuy, supra; People v. Holmes, 312 Ill. 284, 143 N. E. 835; People v. Shurtleff, supra. [5] Except in cases involving the custody of children, which are held to be private suits, in w......
-
People ex rel. Dolan v. Dusher
...v. Sullivan, 339 Ill. 146, 171 N.E. 122; People ex rel. Briggs & Turivas v. Cook, 311 Ill. 429, 143 N.E. 57; People ex rel. Wonogas v. Holmes, 312 Ill. 284, 143 N.E. 835; People ex rel. Jones v. Chytraus, 183 Ill. 190, 55 N.E. 666; People ex rel. Storey v. Knickerbocker, 114 Ill. 539, 2 N.E......
-
Young's Estate, In re
...certain record as a basis for the amendment. Freeport Motor Casualty Co. v. Tharp, 406 Ill. 295, 94 N.E.2d 139; People ex rel. Wonogas v. Holmes, 312 Ill. 284, 143 N.E. 835; West Chicago Park Com'rs v. Boal, 232 Ill. 248, 83 N.E. 824. The rule is succinctly stated in Moore v. Shook, 276 Ill......