Case ID: ill-app_211/html/0304-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Matchett", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lawrence Newton, Appellee, v. E. J. Ohrenstein, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 23,661.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    ■ Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Lawrence Newton, plaintiff, against E. J. Ohrenstein, defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Appellee’s motion to strike the stenographic report was granted and the report ordered stricken, and motion by appellant to set aside that order was reserved to the hearing.
    Bunge, Harbour & Schmidt, for appellant.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    Municipal Court of Chicago, § 26* — when certificate is insufficient as basis for subsequent entry of nunc pro tunc order by judge signing stenographic report. A certificate by a judge of the Municipal Court of Chicago, executed on the date of the expiration of an extension of the time for filing the stenographic report, that, in the absence from the city of the trial judge, the document was presented to the certifying judge in open court to be signed, is not sufficient basis for the subsequent entry of a nunc pro tunc order by the trial judge signing the report as of such date, in the absence of an affirmative showing of due diligence on the part of appellant by certificate of the trial judge.
    Comerford & Cohen, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.