Underwood v. Hossack.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1865 |
| Citation | 40 Ill. 98,1865 WL 2979 |
| Parties | UNDERWOODv.HOSSACK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
MR. D. P. JONES, for the plaintiff in error, moved the court to make the bill of exceptions in this case a part of the record.
It appears from the record that three days were allowed within which the plaintiff in error might file his bill of exceptions.
The bill of exceptions is copied into the transcript, but appears not to have been actually filed until some time after the three days had elapsed. We have held that where a party presents his bill of exceptions to the judge within the time prescribed for its being filed, he has complied with the rule so far as it is in his power to do so, and he is not to be prejudiced because the judge may not actually sign the bill until after the time so fixed has expired. The judge having signed this bill of exceptions, we will presume that he would not have done so, unless it had been presented to him in proper time. The mere fact that it was not filed within the time, does not rebut that presumption; but the defendant is at liberty to do so by showing such not to have been the fact; until that is done, the bill of exceptions will be regarded as having been filed in good time. But if the case were different, as a matter of fact, we could not help the plaintiff under this motion, as this court cannot direct that to be made a matter of record which was not made so in the court below.
Motion denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vill. of Warren v. Wright
...the time prescribed for its being filed, he has complied with the rule and is not to be prejudiced by the delay of the judge: Underwood v. Hossack, 40 Ill. 98; Roan v. Rohrer, 72 Ill. 582. If the bill of exceptions was not filed in time, motion should be made in the court below to strike it......
-
People v. Rosenwald
...by the neglect or refusal of the judge to sign the bill of exceptions until after the time fixed for that purpose has expired. Underwood v. Hossack, 40 Ill. 98;Magill v. Brown, 98 Ill. 235;Hawes v. People, 129 Ill. 123, 21 N. E. 777;Hall v. Royal Neighbors, 231 Ill. 185, 83 N. E. 145;Cincin......
-
People v. Kidd
...signs it, the same may be filed nunc pro tunc as of the date of the presentation. This practice has been announced many times. Underwood v. Hossack, 40 Ill. 98;Hawes v. People ex rel. Pulver, 129 Ill. 123, 21 N.E. 777;Olds v. North Chicago Street Railroad Co., 165 Ill. 472, 46 N.E. 446;Hill......
-
People ex rel. Oelsner v. Andrus
...limited for filing it has never prejudiced the party presenting the bill, as has been decided in numerous cases, among which are Underwood v. Hossack, 40 Ill. 98,Ferris v. Commercial Nat. Bank of Chicago, 158 Ill. 237, 41 N. E. 1118, and Olds v. North Chicago Street Railroad Co., 165 Ill. 4......