Court Opinion

ID: 9517938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:37:36.493358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:10.469014
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE DIXON dissenting: I cannot agree that the trial court did not have jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. I cannot agree that the order of dismissal on Sept. 3 was properly obtained. Notice of motion has been defined as a means of bringing a motion on for hearing. A formal notice that a motion described therein will be made before the court at the time and place stated in the notice. Rallantines Law Dictionary, 867. Appellant concedes that he gave no such notice relying on the dictum from Galeener v. Hessel, 292 Ill.App. 523. The facts of that case were that plaintiff filed a lawsuit and 5 days later dismissed it. The defendant had not yet entered an appearance. The case simply held that since Sec. 52 of the Civil Practice Act requires notice “to each party who has appeared or his attorney” no notice was required since the defendant had not yet appeared. Even so, Sec. (5) of the Civil Practice Act provides, “The court * * * may on motion filed within 30 days after entry thereof set aside any final order * * Well within 30 days the husband filed his motion to set aside the order of dismissal which motion is still pending. The effect of a motion filed pursuant to subsection 5 prevents the order from becoming final until the motion is disposed of. (Corwin v. Rheims, 390 Ill. 205.) Further, “It is well settled that a judgment of the trial court does not become final until the passage of 30 days”. McDowell v. Jarnagin, 56 Ill.App.2d 395. The instant case was commenced Sept. 28, at that time the order of dismissal was not final, the wife was a party to a divorce suit still pending in the Circuit Court of Tazewell County, Illinois, and for that reason the trial corut had jurisdiction over her person.