Radloff v. Haase
| Decision Date | 05 June 1902 |
| Citation | 197 Ill. 98,64 N.E. 557 |
| Parties | RADLOFF v. HAASE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Motion to compel the clerk of the supreme court to file a petition for rehearing. Motion denied.
For former opinion, see 63 N. E. 729.
This is a motion, entered in behalf of the appellee, for a rule on the clerk requiring him to file a petition for a rehearing of the cause as of the 12th day of May, 1902.
An opinion was filed herein on the 16th day of April, 1902. The rules of this court permitted the appellee to file a petition for a rehearing within 25 days after the filing of the opinion. The last day of the 25 days so allowed was Sunday, May 11, 1902. The office of the clerk is not open for the transaction of business on the Sabbath day, and for that reason we have construed the rule to permit the filing of petition for rehearing, in such instance, on the succeeding day, which in this case would have been Monday, May 12th. The petition here asked to be filed was not, however, filed, or tendered to be filed, on Monday, the 12th. The motion for a rule on the clerk to file the same as of the 12th day of May is supported by an affidavit, from which it appears that on Monday, the 12th day of May, counsel for the appellee delivered the petition, together with the number of copies thereof as required by the rules, to the American Express Company, in the city of Chicago, to be transmitted by express to the clerk of this court in Springfield.
Counsel insist it is a well-recognized usage and practice in the courts of the state to regard petitions for rehearing, transcripts, and other like documents, as being constructively in the hands of the clerk from and after the time such documents have been delivered to an express company for transmission to the clerk, or have been deposited in the post office to be conveyed by mail to the clerk, and that, in that view, the clerk should file the petition herein as of the 12th day of May, the day on which it was delivered to the express company in Chicago. There is no rule of this court which authorizes the clerk to file papers as of any other date than that on which they are actually received by him. It is not a ministerial, but a judicial, function to determine that papers shall be filed nunc pro tune as of a date other than that of their actual reception by the clerk. The official reporter of the court at once, after the expiration of the 25 days allowed for the filing of petitions for rehearing, publishes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ayala v. Goad
...to determine that papers shall be filed nunc pro tunc as of a date other than their actual reception by the clerk. Radloff v. Haase (1902), 197 Ill. 98, 100, 64 N.E. 557. The circuit clerk's practice of filing then changing the filing dates on documents where fees were not paid created the ......
-
Ruffin v. Department of Transp., 80-457
...leave of court, no one has authority to file documents as of any other date than that on which they are received. (Cf. Radloff v. Haase (1902), 197 Ill. 98, 64 N.E. 557; 1 Nichols Illinois Civil Practice § 380, at 406 (1976).) To alter the date upon which a complaint is filed is to alter th......
-
Fairfax Family Fund, Inc. v. Couch
...as evidenced by a file stamp, before a paper is considered "filed." (Hamilton v. Beardslee (1869), 51 Ill. 478; see Radloff v. Haase, (1902), 197 Ill. 98, 64 N.E. 557; 1 C. Nichols, Illinois Civil Practice 406 (1976).) Under this standard, it is not sufficient for filing to show that a plea......
- Ramsay's Estate v. People ex rel. Trs. of Illinois Asylum for Insane Criminals