Case ID: ill-app_192/html/0059-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Scanlan", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William O. Swett, Plaintiff in Error, v. City of Chicago (Impleaded with Illinois Tunnel Company), Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 20,151.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. William B. Scholeield, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.
    Dismissed for want of prosecution.
    Opinion filed March 11, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action on the case by William O. Swett against the City of Chicago and the Illinois Tunnel Company, a corporation, to recover damages in the sum of $50,000. To an amended declaration filed by the plaintiff, each defendant filed a separate general demurrer. The defendant, Illinois Tunnel Company, was afterwards given leave to withdraw its demurrer and to file certain pleas to the declaration. The demurrer of the defendant, City of Chicago, was sustained by the trial court, and the plaintiff electing to stand by its declaration as to the defendant, City of Chicago, the suit as to the last named defendant was dismissed and a judgment for costs in favor of the said City and against the plaintiff was entered. The plaintiff excepted to this action of the trial court, and prayed an appeal from the said judgment and afterwards, on February 26, 1914, filed this writ of error in this court.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Appeal and error, § 1117
      
      —when writ of error dismissed for want of prosecution. Failure of the plaintiff in error to file an abstract within the period fixed by an extension order requires the dismissal of the writ of error for want of prosecution.
    Pattison & Shaw and Mills & Holly, for plaintiff in error.
    William H. Sexton and William Dillon, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.