Tidwell v. Smith
| Decision Date | 05 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | 760.,Gen. No. 11 |
| Citation | 192 N.E.2d 410,43 Ill. App.2d 9 |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Parties | Artie V. Tidwell, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. Glenn Smith, Edward V. Platt, and the Sisters of The Third Order of St. Francis, a Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
John R. Snively, of Rockford, for appellant.
Haye & Keegan, of Rockford (Frederick H. Haye and John C. McCarthy, of counsel), for appellees.
R. Glenn Smith and Edward V. Platt, and Williams, McCarthy & Kinley, of Rockford, for appellees, the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis.
(Abstract of Decision.)
Opinion by JUDGE WRIGHT.
Affirmed.
Not to be published in full.
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
National Underground Const. Co. v. E.A. Cox Co.
...mandate. Therefore, a party may seek a dismissal for want of prosecution even if the action has not been reinstated. Tidwell v. Smith (1963), 43 Ill.App.2d 9, 192 N.E.2d 410(abstract Here, E.A. Cox did not file a motion seeking dismissal for want of prosecution. Furthermore, we have examine......
-
Miller v. Bloomberg
...that the prevailing party must be diligent in reinstating the remanded case to docket; that the principles of Tidwell v. Smith (1963), 43 Ill.App.2d 9, 192 N.E.2d 410 (abstract), were applicable; that laches is especially applicable where an option contract is concerned; that defendants are......
-
People v. Eidel
...he could obtain the relief available on remand. See Miller, 126 Ill.App.3d at 338, 81 Ill.Dec. 540, 466 N.E.2d 1342; Tidwell v. Smith, 43 Ill.App.2d 9, 192 N.E.2d 410 (1963) (abstract of opinion). After Rules 368 and 369 took effect, the prevailing party had no need to file the reviewing co......
-
Tidwell v. Smith
...was granted, and judgment was entered in the trial court for defendants. We affirmed this dismissal and judgment on September 5, 1963 (43 Ill.App.2d 9, 192 N.E.2d 410); and the Supreme Court denied petition for leave to appeal on January 21, On November 5, 1963, plaintiff filed the complain......
Request a trial to view additional results