Ticktin v. Verunac
| Decision Date | 24 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 50382 |
| Citation | 212 N.E.2d 302,64 Ill.App.2d 122 |
| Parties | Harold TICKTIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vaclav VERUNAC, Oldrich Kostelecky, Vaclav Sura and Jarmila Verunac, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Anna D. Marek, Ontarioville, for defendants-appellants.
Joseph J. Ticktin, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.
In a non-jury contract action, judgment was entered against all defendants for $1600, and they have appealed. Plaintiff has filed a cross appeal seeking an additional $500.
Plaintiff now files a motion to strike defendants' abstract for failure to comply with the court rules governing same, to strike defendants' report of proceedings for failure to file it on time, and to dismiss the appeal for failure to file the record on time. Needless to say, allowance of the motion to dismiss would render the other motions inconsequential, but we wish to comment briefly thereon in passing.
Supreme Court Rule 38 (S.H.A. ch. 110, § 101.38) 1 lays down certain minimum requirements for abstracts which we believe should not be too difficult of compliance. There has been an altogether too extensive failure to adhere to these requirements, on the part of attorneys generally. The result has been an unwelcome imposition upon the judges of this court, just at a time when the volume of its cases has grown to overwhelming proportions. In a half dozen different ways, the abstract in the instant case fails to comply with the rules. It is clearly insufficient to present the errors relied upon, nor does it cover all matters necessary to a full understanding of the questions presented for decision. Under these circumstances we would be justified in striking the abstract either on appellee's motion or on our own.
The Notice of Appeal was filed in the trial court on December 7, 1964. Supreme Court Rule 36(1)(c) requires that a report of proceedings be filed, duly certified, within 50 days thereafter. In this case the 50-day period expired on January 26, 1965. The record discloses that the report of proceedings was not filed until February 3, 1965.
Supreme Court Rule 36(1)(c) makes provision for the extension of time to file a report of proceedings. As pertinent to this case it states, (Emphasis supplied.) Thereafter any further extensions must be obtained from the reviewing court.
Two days after the expiration of the time for filing a report of proceedings, defendants made application to the trial court for a 45-day extension. This application came too late, and the court was without authority to grant such an extension. Any order entered on the basis of such an untimely application would be void, and of no effect, and this result would follow even though the order were otherwise in proper form, 2 and even though it might have been entered on agreement of the parties. Hambley v. Conroy, 11 Ill.App.2d 568, 138 N.E.2d 64; Sparacino v. Ferona, 9 Ill.App.2d 422, 133 N.E.2d 753; First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Maywood v. Oak Park Nat. Bank, 57 Ill.App.2d 477, 207 N.E.2d 79 (First Dist. #50394).
Supreme Court Rule 36 also declares the time for filing the record on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Portock v. Freeman
...138 N.E.2d 64.) Thus, the order of February 5, based on plaintiff's untimely motion, was void and without effect. (Ticktin v. Verunac (1965), 64 Ill.App.2d 122, 212 N.E.2d 302.) This failure to obtain an effective extension means that plaintiff only had the initial 49 days within which to f......
-
Henry v. Waz
...the period for filing the report of proceedings was void and of no effect. The defendants have conceded that Ticktin v. Verunac (1965), 64 Ill.App.2d 122, 212 N.E.2d 302; Lukas v. Lukas (1942), 381 Ill. 429, 45 N.E.2d 869; and Portock v. Freeman, supra, all support the appellee's position t......
-
First Finance Co. v. Ross
...grant an extension where the application therefor was made after the expiration of the original 50 day period. Ticktin v. Verunac et al., Ill.App., 212 N.E.2d 302 (First Dist.); Grossi Brothers, Inc. v. Schmidt, 44 Ill.App.2d 228, 194 N.E.2d 557. The reasons for failing to file a report of ......
- 1616 Building Corp. v. Rubinson