Sixty-Third & Halsted Realty Co. v. Goldblatt Bros.
| Decision Date | 18 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | SIXTY-THIRD,31969,Nos. 31968,s. 31968 |
| Citation | 410 Ill. 468,102 N.E.2d 749 |
| Parties | GOLDBLATT BROS., Inc., et al., Appellants, v.AND HALSTED REALTY CO., Appellee.AND HALSTED REALTY CO., Appellee, v. GOLDBLATT BROS., Inc., Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, First Division, on Appeal in No. 31968 from Circuit Court Cook County; Elmer J. Schnackenberg, Judge.
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, First Division, on appeal in No. 31969 from Superior Court, Cook County; John A. Sbarbaro, Judge.
Eckhart, Klein, McSwain & Campbell and Pritzker, Pritzker & Clinton, all of Chicago (John Neal Campbell, Howard F. Husum, Stanford Clinton, and Robert A. Sprecher, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Clausen, Hirsh & Miller and Nash, Ahern & McNally, all of Chicago (Werner W. Schroeder, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
Petitions for leave to appeal have been allowed in Goldblatt Bros., Inc., v. Sixty-third and Halsted Realty Co., No. 31968, and Sixty-third and Halsted Realty Co. v. Goldblatt Bros., Inc., No. 31969. For purposes of a hearing and opinion the cases are consolidated.
The parties in these cases have filed written stipulations agreeing to the disposition of the cases. The stipulation in each case is as follows:
'It is stipulated by and between the parties hereto by their respective attorneys of record that the judgment of the Appellate Court shall be affirmed.
'It is further stipulated by all parties hereto that any words or phrases or conclusions in the opinion of the Appellate Court which in any manner reflect upon the good faith or good motives of appellant, Goldblatt Bros., Inc., shall be considered as excepted to by Goldblatt Bros., Inc.'
The court having considered the records submitted and the stipulations of the parties, it is ordered that the judgment be affirmed. The phrases and conclusions in the opinion of the Appellate Court, 342 Ill.App. 389, 96 N.E.2d 838, which in any manner reflect upon the good faith and good motives of appellant, Goldblatt Bros., Inc., are, in our opinion, unsubstantiated in the record.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northern Indiana Commuter Transp. Dist. v. Chicago SouthShore
...592, 602 (1986); Sixty-Third & Halsted Realty Co. v. Goldblatt Bros., 342 Ill.App. 389, 96 N.E.2d 838, 843 (1951), aff'd, 410 Ill. 468, 102 N.E.2d 749 (1951). NICTD offers no precedent to the contrary, but we have identified at least three intermediate appellate decisions holding that a tri......
-
Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway and Park Dist. of Peoria, Ill.
...follows the same rule. Sixty-Third & Halsted Realty Co. v. Goldblatt Bros., 342 Ill.App. 389, 96 N.E.2d 838 (1951), aff'd, 410 Ill. 468, 102 N.E.2d 749. We do not agree with the district court, however, that Judge Iben's finding disposed of plaintiffs' claim herein or of critical facts pert......
-
Syntex Ophthalmics, Inc. v. Novicky
...preclusive effect. See Sixty-Third & Halsted Realty Co. v. Goldblatt Bros., 342 Ill.App. 389, 96 N.E.2d 838, 843, aff'd, 410 Ill. 468, 102 N.E.2d 749 (1951). ("The law is clearly established that a judgment and decree pending on appeal is res judicata.")18 Although the state trial court did......
-
Batiste v. Furnco Construction Corporation
...though an appeal is now pending. Sixty-Third & Halsted Realty Co. v. Goldblatt Bros., 342 Ill.App. 389, 96 N.E.2d 838, aff'd, 410 Ill. 468, 102 N.E.2d 749 (1951). Thus, plaintiffs would be barred from prosecuting this suit in federal court were the usual principles of res judicata applicabl......