Court Opinion

ID: 9712222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:49:28.942838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:11.045461
License: Public Domain

ENGLISH, J. In defendant’s Petition for Rehearing, points which had been raised in her briefs have been restated. In addition, she contends that the pleadings created an issue of fact as to plaintiffs’ ownership of the dominant premises. It is true that defendant’s answer to the amended complaint alleged insufficient knowledge to admit or deny plaintiffs’ ownership and demanded proof thereof. In defendant’s amendment to her answer, however, repeated references are made to “plaintiffs’ premises,” plaintiffs’ lack of need for access to the rear of “their premises,” etc. Some of these statements are quoted in our original opinion. From these statements in the later pleading, it appears that defendant was not challenging plaintiffs’ ownership, and in her briefs filed in this court no point was made of this contention, which is raised here for the first time on Petition for Rehearing.  For the reason stated, we believe that the point is without merit, but in any event, it comes too late for consideration. Supreme Court Rule 341 (e) (7); Ill Rev Stats 1967, c 110A, § 341(e) (7). We adhere to our original opinion, and defendant’s Petition for Rehearing is denied. STAMOS, P. J. and DRUCKER, J., concur.