Case ID: ill-app_210/html/0510-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Niehaus", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank Johnson et al., Appellants, v. George Whitham, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 6,514.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Equity, § 554
      
      —what is purpose of hill of review. A bill of review is properly filed to procure an examination and reversal of a decree after its enrollment, and is not a part of the original cause, but an independent proceeding, and is the only proper method by which the court rendering the decree can review it for error after the time for rehearing has expired.
    2. Equity, § 97*-—who must he made parties. It is a fundamental principle in equity concerning parties that aU persons in whose favor or against whom there might he a recovery, however partial, and also all persons who are so interested, although indirectly, in the subject-matter and relief granted, that their rights or duties might be affected by the decree, although no substantial recovery can be obtained either for or against them, shall be made parties to the suit, and it is not ordinarily a matter of substantial importance whether they are joined as plaintiffs or as defendants.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. George W. Patton, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 9, 1918.
    Rehearing denied May 14, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill of review by Frank Johnson and others, members of the Cornell Improvement Association, complainants, against George Whitham, defendant, to review a chancery case in which defendant Whitham, as • complainant, filed a bill against the complainants and others, as defendants, to dissolve a partnership and to procure an accounting. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the bill of review, all the complainants except one appeal.
    F. A. Ortman and L. M. Shelly, for appellants.
    James T. Terry, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number,
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Appeal and error, § 1213*—what may not be assigned Tor error. A party cannot assign for error that which does not affect him but is prejudicial only to others who do not complain.

4. Appeal and ebrob—when error in reinstating stricken bill without notice may not be complained of. Any error of the trial court, in a suit in equity to dissolve a partnership and procure an accounting, in reinstating without notice to the defendants, the bill, which was stricken from the docket with leave to reinstate, cannot be raised on appeal where the question was not raised in the trial court, and no injustice resulted from the action of the court.

5. Equity, § 574a —when bill of review defective for lack of parties. A bill for review of a decree in a suit by one partner against other members of the partnership for a" dissolution of the partnership and for an accounting is fatally defective where only some of the defendants are made parties to the bill of review.