Case ID: ill-app_187/html/0443-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Illinois Improvement & Ballast Company, Appellant, v. Inger C. Heinsen, Executrix, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 19,917.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and error, § 839
      
      —when appellant entitled to file bill of exceptions within reasonable time after it is signed by court. Where a bill of exceptions was presented to the trial court for signature within the time allowed by the court and was marked "presented” but not signed until after the expiration of the time allowed for filing, the appellant has a reasonable time thereafter in which to file it, and what constitutes a reasonable time depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case—filing of the bill of exceptions more than two weeks after it was signed, held an unreasonable delay.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. H. Sterling Pomeroy, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.
    
      Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).
    Affirmed and bill of exceptions stricken.
    Opinion filed July 2, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Motion by Inger C. Heinsen, executrix of the last will and testament of Hans Heinsen, defendant in error, to strike from the files a bill of exceptions filed by Illinois Improvement & Ballast Company, a corporation, plaintiff in error, and a further motion by defendant in error to affirm the judgment in case the first motion was granted.
    David B. Maxwell and Simon Kruse, for appellant.
    Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for appellee; Julius Moses and Walter Bachrach, of counsel.
    
      
      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. Presiding Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and error, § 833 —jurisdiction of court to extend time for filing hill of exceptions. Where the time for filing a bill of exceptions is extended by an order of court, the court after the expiration of time allowed has no jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc order so as to extend the time previously allowed for filing.

3. Appeal and error, §' 952*—when affidavits cannot he considered on motion to strike hill of exceptions. On motion to strike a bill of exceptions from the files upon the ground that it was not filed in time, affidavits presented by counsel for appellant for the purpose of showing that failure to file was not due to the fault of appellant cannot be considered.