Case Name: William W. Satonstall et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Canal Commissioners, Defendants in Error
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1852-06
Citations: 13 Ill. 705
Docket Number: 
Parties: William W. Satonstall et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Canal Commissioners, Defendants in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 705–705

Head Matter:
William W. Satonstall et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Canal Commissioners, Defendants in Error.
ERROR TO COOK.
Where an order is made, that a bill of exceptions be filed in vacation, it will be understood to mean the next ensuing vacation of the court at which the order is made.
During the term in which the judgment in this case was entered, an order was made on the record that the bill of exceptions be filed in vacation. It was filed after two terms of the court had intervened. The defendant in error entered his motion to exclude it from the record.
J. N. Arnold, for the motion.
J. C. Champlin, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The motion must prevail. The order must be understood to mean the vacation immediately succeeding the term at which the judgment was rendered. The order did not extend to any other vacation.
By any other construction, there might not be any limitation fixing the time for filing the exceptions.