Case Name: Alexander McIntosh and Elizabeth McIntosh v. Denslow Lewis
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1897-03-29
Citations: 69 Ill. App. 593
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alexander McIntosh and Elizabeth McIntosh v. Denslow Lewis.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 593–593

Head Matter:
Alexander McIntosh and Elizabeth McIntosh v. Denslow Lewis.
1. Courts—Power to Undo Past Action.—In all essential particulars this case is like Angus v. Backus, 58 Ill. App. 259, and Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Chicago & Northern Pacific R. R., Ibid. 388, and must meet the same fate.
Transcript, from a justice of the peace. Appeal from the Circuit. Cmrt of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding
Hjard in this court at the March term, 1897.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed March 29, 1897.
Charles S. Miller, attorney for appellants.
Cameron & Matson, attorneys for appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Gary
delivered the opinion of the Court;
This record shows thatMay 5, 1896, in this cause proceedings were had as follows:
" This cause being called for trial and the defendants failing to prosecute their appeal in this behalf on motion of plaintiff's attorney it is ordered that said appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed at defendants' costs for want of prosecution, and that a procedendo do issue herein to the court below. Therefore, it is considered by the court that plaintiff do have and recover of and from the defendants, his costs and charges in this behalf expended and "have execution therefor."
September 18, 1896, the appellants, defendants below,, moved the court to vacate and set aside these proceedings.
In all essential particulars the case is like Angus v. Backus, 58 Ill. App. 259, and Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Chicago & Northern Pacific R. R., Ibid. 388, and must meet the-same fate. The reason for affirming is that the court had no jurisdiction in September to undo what it had done in May, whatever hardship it had inflicted upon the appellants.
The order appealed from denying the motion, is affirmed.