Case ID: ill-app_179/html/0093-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Louis Henry, Plaintiff in Error, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 18,597.
    Appeals and ebbobs—failure to file abstract and brief. A writ of error may be dismissed for failure to file abstract and brief in accordance with the rules where additional time was given on four occasions and the fifth motion for an extension of time was made four days after the date' fixed for the filing of them by the last order.
    . Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Newcomer, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.
    Dismissed.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1913.
    Henry & Robinson, for plaintiff in error.
    Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, for defendant in error.
   Per Curiam.

A motion has been made in this case to dismiss the writ of error for failure of the plaintiff in error to file abstract and brief in accordance with the rules.

There is said to be $11.00 involved in the case. There was a judgment for the defendant in error in the Municipal Court for costs against the plaintiff, and the case has been brought here by writ of error prosecuted by the plaintiff. Additional time to file an abstract and a brief has been given by order of court on four occasions. A fifth motion for an extension of time was made four days after the date fixed for the filing of them by the last order. That motion is denied and the motion of the defendant in error that the writ of error be dismissed is allowed.

Writ of error dismissed.