Copyright
Illinois Appellate Court.

Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.280) online

. (page 23 of 54)
Online LibraryIllinois Appellate CourtIllinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.280) → online text (page 23 of 54)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


sat aside was rendered and an entirely new suit at law, ( Bkriis v.
C hicago House W recki ng Go» > 314 111, 600.)

Under the riiiee of the MunicippJ. court the legal sufficiency
of defendant* a «»3tion to racpte could be properly tested onl^ by a
notion to strike or disaaitj^ seme* hile plaintiff in hia motion
qusationei ihe l«gal sufiioigncy of dafendant's motion to Taeate the
Judgment* he did net stop ther^ but. proceeded wO trnrarae the ntat^rial
alleg tions of siuaet and also to alloge certain afiirMatire facts as
a defence to such motion* It was on the issues of fact thus aade that
the cauus prooeeded to hearing* i^laiatiff's motion concluded with a
Terif loatloni it is 3.ppar«nt that it partook aoth of the nature of a
motion to strike or Jismiusi ^hioh raised only iseues ef law| and ef
an affidarit of defense on the jteritst raising only issues of faet*
That it could not be both and must bo held to be one or %h^ other re-
quires no citation of authoritioe*

A motion to strlko or dlsmlsa ie in the nature of a d«iauxrer
and when a plea er aa affidayit of aeriterieus def unse ie filed # while
a demurrer or motion to dismiss is pending* the demurrer er motiea to
dismiss is waired. ( Mollulty ▼. hitoi 24d 111, App. 572,) i)y pleading
t« the merits of defendant's motion to Taeate the Judgment plaintiff
wist be held to haTe vraiyed the question of its legal suffieienej,
(pofski V. Rmi lroad supply Oo, . 236 111, 146 f Jmith t. Rntledg» . 338



•tffl




ii»*


: JE1U<;


»ii




*■/ j^i^





Xftff®'t&




.rs TKtf


•Un?>



to ;?^'i»' & "sot noi:,Ji;fj>c. .o'led ehfsai *«5jl* aji ^urt

Wfi ip fXA bon^bRdt «^v 9 bias i99

.ttiM «ritf to soXuri sfiLJ 'zabaS

*.«r{jr )M.>.i« »«i«4 /w . -,. .,<s.A<s«l ft'ii'^ «■ - ,SioiUsii tioUKi 9i ^apal.)!^ /n

-»i: -onac : tftc '^tj «v tied w^tf ^^uai tn4 ri^otf ttf ^oc Muao M '>':-



-4-

Id. ISO; li« ▼• fr^tHiJ^nf 19< id. &92.)

It !• oonc«'i«d th«t «Tld«nc« was hoard I17 the trtal eoujrt
ea its ha^rlna: oa tlie notUas of plmlatlff and defendant* tout it was
n«t preiserTed )»7 a bill of axoeptloaa* There being no bill of exoep-
tione wo MQat india!r« the pre«uuptioQ that defendant lntre<)ue«d proof
Buft'ioient to ^Mt^Xify thr sntry of ihe ord'sr apponlod from. C Hagiai^
?&8er_!;Joj. Y. ga.at.,§t..Lo<i.^is .rtib* Jo,«, 269 111. 935,)

The order apr^oalod froK wau the iw gm«nt ol the oourt ia
the new proceed lag te rneate the JuUdpaent theretofore watered, aad
the r^^ord brought to this oourt la this oaaae diocloees that plain-
tiff aXeo faile^ to preeent a aiotlon in arrest of the order or judg-
Hjent. la ^isscthe ▼• yargo . y ^7 111* SO^t whore a petition in the
nature of a »^rlt of *rr«r eor«a nobla to Taoato a judgaent was filed
uadsr 3«otl<>n 39 of th« ?"'r*«oti«>e et (Identical with section 72 of
the Clfil Jhtjotlcr et , g-upra ) , t^w$ $>m. answer w«s filed denying the
BiAwcrial alXogntions cf mxch Dentition* the oourt* in dieeuseiag the
aatux$ of the proc9«KfiB^ fMvS the proper sode of prooodure to preserTo
far r«ivie« thu question of the legal aoff loleaoy of the petit ioa#

sfitd aV p* 504 1

..he questlone hf^f. ^*Ki<^*'S wi?re eoneiderod ia Boaitekl
▼ . TBftriean J indo ed C o*, 221 111* !#!• ».'h«b .vus .•* ^jrocos In-^
uoaer «iiat Is'ao ■ c icTlon 39 of th? J'rpctioe act, to racato aad
set nsido a Judgneat previously rencjered. Xho oomplalain; yn'ty
flle4 a action for th- t purpose, eptttnff 1^ the rerssoas relioti on.
It does not apoear that tho opposite party flit; anything in reply,
but objected ^.0 thf woe ion on th'3 ground th« tera »t whioh the
ju(]gaeat was readereri had expired aac tho cou:t iiad no Jiirip Uotion.
l( idavltij ^03 e ro' d In support of the notioa, to all of whieh a
general objectloa waa aado. £Ue court »uataine the motion and
va«ate<i tha former Judga<STit, to which exc<>ptioas were taken. Ihio
court said. In vubstanoo, th^ t tilittd the iootion to Tac;«t< the foraor
Jmdgaeat *a» the ooMm?no«Dtf'nt of a new suit, la which bow isiaaee are
Made up, on whieh there must be a findiag aad Ju^gaunt, '^ad the aotloa
stands in plaoe of a d-olar;ition. It Is a suit at law lndep«ndeal of
the proce ding la which the judgaenu oouiiht to b^ set aelde was
readerftd, and ualesa an ieaue of 1» w ia aade on thft motion In the
trial court, the ^ueetlon passed upaa by «hat court ie oae of fact
Whether or net the court ia the foraor procewl lag oeamitttj< uny error
la fact. The plaintiff in error la that ease eontended In this court
that the motion did not, on its faeo, dieclose any error In f*ct aad
that thf» court erred ia aseualng Juria'Kctioa of it. the oourt hald
thct wns a uestioa of law* which should haT«» been aavea m eoao
appropriate wfijr r cognised by law. .0 that was aot deao and ao
aotloa in arroet of JudgMsat was made, the queetiea whether the aotioa



•^»



»^pti-x» "in Itm Oil



fii ifv.j)






6*Ii^ a«w *Kt»«^iJ|, .n »#ji»9d»v *^ JliliiSiR I9»W» s«T»» to dif & 1« frifJsr?
•riouotq o^ -titwhi^aoiq ti^ ®fc<ua tf^^otti '»iii hca ^^Bi^e»^Ol«l wild lo auiia

. T

- ml»9

IPO*
'•it« Mil

uiti
...,W*rfir

... ■, -.W JKr

HA •



« V*



fsfOa



JWla'Cffi



-5-

on ite f«c« dl«ol9a«n an/ «rroT In fact w'»6 not pi««eiTod for

Til* lsra«8 jm&dt *y the a»>r?«r of plAintiffe In error»
which a y properly b«? treated sb th«3ir ple&t w«ro issuatt «f foot.

gy plead Ibk to the B«rifc^e of «he d«cl&r}i>lon or n^^ t*i?X v ulr^i^

ftwy c-ttegVioq ne to lie aufrici'^ney, wift JJ yTll'h^ ^ ^ «j> ^

properly »t '_ting f^ osuag of gotion. '* (Italios ours'. )

As the case ataurfs ao (ijueatioa of 1^ * is pre^ente^ on
thie record* ^ifclxdi a^ to dutend&nT^'s Botion uo v&oate tho JucIi^miiI
ox as to -he 5iifiMei«ncy of thB evl<l«iie«-» It, wwe puiely a i^ueBtlon
ol fact tkB to whether or not tmra w«« .'i« arrov of fact coaaltf-od
by im eourl whlejbi eulainat,8d la she JiKgaent aougUi to be Taoat^d*
and plaintiff he« preBervod aa reeerd fimtitHag Mb to review or
Huoctloa Ui« fcu>t»« tkutrti i«, ther«fojr«, no qu^afcloa properly
"before this oourt as to vhetlittr or not <lv3f endant* b ibouIoo Btatad,
or «l»thor th« «!vld««eo provodf withla ths coat»apl«tlon of i^dotioa
72 of th» citU l»rftctlco Act, aa error of fact ia the ^ or««r pxo-
eoof$ia«» in support of the Judgswafe or order. ( Iterrt|i y. cai o:v.fl»
Houoo Croc king co> . oupya , )

f^r th« roaooas la(iloat<^ tiio ardar ar judgMiat of tha
Mualcipal eourt Is aff ir»ad*

friws4» ?• J., and Saanlaat J*t oaaaur*



-8-






fioi-si '•«»« ads

i?oi>r . ♦8ss!D!(9r>i r-^ 6ll4 \e ^tftw^^oi ■' aa let

tin 2 <; ^ ,i • i^K ■ ' ...>»..-



«^i«i»not ■ ^'ii-atiia. 8>«« • '^ ^i'- ^'''



^rm



FBOJtS 0? TH'^ 3tAT3 OF IIUWOIS,
i)ttfendaiit i» JSxruTf

Plaintiff in srror*





Bi»?oR TO mnnciPAX

COm^P OF CHICAGO*



tU.



MB, JUi^nCS c>«LLIVA« DEUVmil) TM QPXHZOS OJ? THB COtmT*

An information wa&s filed Jun« 289 X9Mt charging defend-
ant ivith Tiolatien of par* 459 of chap* 5St ami th-lbtr d * a 1931
111* H«T* Stfibtutes* On tha same day (defendant was arraigned and
«ntered a ploa of not gixilty. A trial by jury haTlna boon wairo*
tlcui oatiso was subaittod to fhe oourt* Thsx^o vrao a finding of
guilty In Btannor ancS fora [email protected] charged in tho Infometion and tko

court 9ntored judgicont on th? finding » sKntencing d^f^ndant to a

to

tern of one y«ar at Inbor in tbo houea of correction and/pay a fino

of tlO and oosts anoxintin'i to $6*50« This writ of orvor oooko to
roToroo tho ^ud^^ont*

Dofondant contend e that tho information ie fatally dofoo-
tive in that it failed to charge any crime -vnd that the jndgaont
end aittlKos ieeuod pursuant thereto ore roid by re^aon of the
invalidity of tho laforaation*

The theory ie Tcry feebly adranoed by aouneel for tho
state that although not oaroiully drami tho information "defootiroly
states an effeneo" in that it "follows the language of the heading of
the statute and tho language of the oaptiont showing why this leglo-
lation was * • « enaetod*** and that» inasntoh as no notion wae mdo
in the trial oourt either for % bill of particulars* to quaeh the
information or in arrest of judgment » objeotlon on the growad of tho



"is



988fe

-i¥ OT Hc

•r
»



t^n.- 'j-.f^j/aT-x.;^ ^'.-i.- .>iT.-;:^,e1;»f» -^.^i^ .iwiuiaio *r^H ,XXI

art* MV3 coij«nniotfjl »rfif ei fejiijTjiilo *« wr»1 &«« t&im»:2 nt x-^f*^

•nii « Y'5Ci\f>n3 noiJofi'ttOQ !• 9at!0if »rfJ> cfi ♦ro<f«X *j3 Tn«t 5>no to BtT
Oj^ o^'.H^Q rt«'*"£e 'to fl'Xkf 0MT »0S«d4 ojf sfli^otfocw tit'soo ton 0X| to

-'Ml&b xXX^^/a^ ':^i not Jiuflxoliti e^:^ 'is^f i*hxmSKor> iaahn»\^

xatgeX u.tx(;t XJttw scilwwict «ooiiq»i> aiI^ It ot»irsknnX 0£U bm v^tf^jt^a ai
•kJM aaw Aol^oflf ana 8« dttmrnmri ^Sntii htm *'«baifti«iia «^ • « 9mw nttiJtl
ari^ i£b81/p rtf ,^-rX -c ^ftnf lo IXic? « vol ies!iit> iiupo Xalst mAt blI

9Mi ta tawots tAMv nv> Mviao*t(^o « i^aaM^irt ^« Isatvii nit so iMlijurwliU



•2-

iBsuff ici«ii«]r •f t^lM inforsMition u»y not bo arailed of on vrlt

of error.

IhB 8tat;ute» mpT& t creating and defining the offenses

vhieh oonstitute tampering vslth an autono'oile* with the Tiolatiwn

of vhich it was soiM^t to charge defendant* Is ae follousi

*TAlllP^:RIgS -^ItH AKY MOrOK VlimCl^, Be it 8n :'ctx! b^
the <eppla, of^the >> ta te oT""Xll ino 1 a | r n_nr;c^:j cnt ed __in^ th 1
ri¥e rtbly i" ^haV i t shall be'uSl^Jiairfor nny person, i tonally
and without cui-horlty froa the ownar> to ;7t rt or o-us? to be Btart«4
the motor of any no to? 7ehiel9, ex to maliciously shift or chango tha
etartinr, devica or geaxe of b. Bt^mdineT motor v^^hiclei to a position
other than that in which it ^ae left by the owner or drirer of said
Kotor rehiclei and it shall be unl^t ful to int8ntlon"lly cut, mackj
eoratoh or daaage the ohassist running gec^r^ body^ sldcH, top» corer-
ing or upholeterlng of any Bioter vehicle » the property of nother^ or
to Intentionnll - cntt mftAh* »&rk» destroy or damage snoh motor Tehiolat
or any of the RccesK'Ori©e> equipnent* Rppurtsnances or ''tt.nchwents
ther(?of» or an- spare or extra parts thereon being or thereto attached i
iplthout the permieslon of the o.mer thereof* or to intontlonr^lly re-
lease th? bratk upon any f^tanding »otor vehiolot with intent to injure
Riild Machine or cause th« B-ime x>o he x-.mQvc." , ichout tho consent of
the owner."

The information fllod agntinst defendant in this oasa

(oBiltting the formal parts) charged that defendant

'^oid then and there wilfully »n^ unlawfully taaper with
an automobile » towit* One Ford Hoadeter, Motor TTo. A-4407474| tha
property of the eaid Max ^aae without i^ermlseion from the said Max
Srane then and there so to do. Vlolo V^^* <^^^ of nh&o* 38^ mith-
Hurd*8 Berlsed statute of 1931 A. D.o

A «ere inspection of this infomation clearly deaonetrat««
its insufficiency to charge any of the offenses enumerated in tha
foregoing statutot either in the words contained therein creating wuch
offenses or in equivaleat language*

An indietnent ox information charging aa offense defined by
•tatut<? should bo as desoriptire of the offense as is the laaftuago of
the statute and should allege erery substantial rlewent of the defense
as defined by the statute. ( People t, Sheldon^ 322 111. TOf P eoBJo t#
Martin . 314 14* 110 1 ?«ot>1o ▼. Barnes, 314 id. 140 1 £;olcel v. 'eoglOa
812 Id. 23«| C annady v. Pe ople , 17 id. 1581 People t. O'Brien , 301
111. App. 314.) It is fundruaentel that an infomation must allago
*11 tho facts oeeeasary to constitute the crime with which the defoadani



i8«roXIol ^sr ai t^aaba^l'^b esparto oJ *ri7j«on enw .tt riolrfw to












s




' X


t


J




V .«. ..i. iO




70 ,\0 3%»Ai


vw Jii; I


'-'* >;'■•"•' 'ifv


T^.'K r


I


" «f?lA;.. •>


io «r 11.10 1';!> r;/«#




".T^Jil'vO erf^



98»o 8 ids «l Jiujbii»l©b ienlitjic belli nol^f^mtolnl f>r(l

iaxi^ti9tBh imii bfpaiijaffo (a*"i«q Lesrre'i »if? ^nl^tiliStt)

•f£^ ai b«tn"X9'mmt*> ««»»fn»tt« »iCd lo \.»« aa^^ilo* o^' "VF^o-^J^'-^-f*^*^*'^* •^■^
•)|oIXb ^^i^iiH ;.uI«.niuxo«cii; c^ ^^i JLmim^mKibiwl »! il (.^X^ «<[V^ «^It



-3»

Is cli3rg«d and If it doea not sat forth euch facts with sufflcloit
certainty it will not support a conviction. ( People v# -toyayij
280 111. 500| Pooale ▼. BlU'3 ■ 282 111* pp. 256*;

The ill^jg'itions in tii9 Information in ihe instant. oa»a
thargin^: ^Jaat Sefyndant "did •* * ■♦^ tampei -viih an auloaofjil©,'* without
a description of ^.n^r o: the acts d fined as criMnal by the atatuto*
ie \>ut a oonclucion. The iiifoi'B6u>tion failed to distinctly chcigo
eefemlant with any offans® sp»cifiecl in i;he act. The ^ord "tsjtpor*
is not found in the statute Itself » hut only in itn caption* and ia
there used to iudieato the general purpose fov w^hich it wae <9nactoi#
The acte which shall constitute tsimperiag an<i under what oiroua-
Btaneee fi.thln the contemplation of the aot are aet forth tharein«
and dsfendant ^ms clearly entitled to he d sf initely neivie^'" as to
the offense with whieh he mna eharged.

We .-^e iapelled to hold that the infomation in (i%ie»tioB
fell short of charging defendant with axiy offense knov/n to the law»
and counsel for the state coneede thsit where an inform? tion oht^rgon
no offense at all its insaff icienoy owy he o,u3Etionei by writ of
error f even though euch gxounci of oh^ecticn wse not urgod in tho
trial court*

In the ereat that the ?itate*e attorney proceeds uc ftlo
a properly aaendod information an^ again try this caeot «f^ aesuao
that the trial court will take eoi^rnisanoe of th«; fact that liefAndaat
has aerred three months of the one ye»r sentonco iaiposed upon him
under the judgment rerereed her<^in«

¥or the reasons lndlc«>ted thi* judgment of the zounicipal
t«Hrt ia reversed and the cause remanded.

friend » •'. J,, and reanlan» J.» oonovxt



r



itt»tf>mMm tffJrv? ti^B\ Jbum riixol *«.i» $mt 494h ^t Jt %ms ^•^ry^o al
Bjaeo *nr4«fii sti« fu MDiawerjoxoi atji;? at ojmtiM^&llf. ©ifT

nt im» tctoi^t'so ^Sl at xXfto iuii ttXaa^t oiJii;}^??-:* arU ai bMtcl iaa *i

- ^r:^SX«uE£i> ■■ ' • '■' <•' '■ f f^' -■ rf^ 2w « tsBo 'il: o axW

iVjaX e4;t pi Awob;^' - r- '■ :a li^^; j^-'t'. >; ;.ix. i.u.'. ■ .v^> ■; -^uiui-^o lo Alexia ..j.
i»»li-ij«(Ui *U(iJ;iaW3,ol:. " .' i^bo^ttc^ ^ ^ " -^" -'' Xftaxtu-oo tin,:

♦ iTCifOo Xali.*

fcltt oc. a(»i*«oo£q -ifitxz^iin i»«#i3*B ©rf;^ i.siSi ic«»Ye» -^Ai vi

Aai)foR^l>b ;^iul:t i9«l «»iil lo s»ofuixlfiT>OT} eaUi# XIlw itif^ iBtti 9Ai isulS
islxf aoqir bvas^pi »'>fir»#ti»« t^^^ 9rre silt to ufctncuK a«iix(9 b&wtmn umA

»cii')i«it b9t'x»Te)'x lfl«aq|&4/t 'tt^ latcii



*vironaa <.t ,iMji!t*»« fe* , aalT^T



y



/



S7SU



AppeXlRilt*
ApptlX««#





COOK ooumr.



280 I. A* ^'^^

?• JVETXCis: SCLUYJUI i^LlVjlFu£l3 fJEy Qi-'I^KiaV 0^ IKS CaiTlt*



A 4«di»<mt in tromsr for |838 was «iit«ir«d ^7 tlM elr«ult
court April 9» 1934 • in faror of plaintiff* J0n«!ph H«idlB««r» wM
agftlBst dcfeadant* Georg« SefttXey* Oa. araticn •f d^fendavt an ord«r
was entered J\ine xe» 1934* vaoatlng tiut judgnant* Thla app«iil
••akt to r<»YerB«» that ardttr*

PlalJUtiff brought a ropl*Tln aiotion lief ore a Juntleo of
Uu poaod against dofeadant* a oon«tril>l<i» for tho povoosnlon of an
autoBOl)!!* vrhioh d0f<»niaat h^ aoiaod nttder a writ of attachMont
la anotiior proceeding Uronght \s William Holl of Blno I«lantf»
lUinoio* againet ono Itro* K* 1C« l^oa«» Ita «llog«d ovnor* TIm
writ of replaTin having boen returnfttf "no property fonntft* tho
oaaaa «ao trio4 ao an aetion in troTor* and Judgmont nntoritd for
iafondaat* from whioh plaintiff appoalod to th« rireait 90urt» trtioro»
aftor a trial hy &h« eourt withont a Jury» tho iarnoo van* found in
plaint ifl*a faror* Aft«r orerruling dafendant*« motion for a now
trial and in arroat of Judgoaont* the olrcuit eovrt aatvred jndpMBt
April W* 19Mt &8 horetoforc stated* !)ef*adant prajod an nppaal
fron tho judgaont* whieh waa not ptrfactod*

Thoroafiort oa May 22* 19>y-» moro then thirty days mftor
tte entry of tho judgmont* dofend nt Illod a written motion to waeato



- ):



es



<J



■" ^ ^ v> W^



SX9f£



tlrwlls^q^*^



♦ OfrXIt.*



il 'dQ'flOUi



'UTLuaa AOiiMim, mm












/aX<4 il»ldv «<rrl 4 iJL'.<bf(»t«^



PA/t »a? ru \ 'iTin"



PMM ABd f«r A n9v trial* and In tmpport. tik«r««f » Tftrlfled 9«tlt.i<m
RoeoBpftnlcd 1»y affid»Tlte of betli of hie Htt^rnaya and Mr** Ro8«#
purport ls« to s«t forth the dtscoTttry of ii«v aTldonoo- i particularly
th« ownernhlp of tlte outooebilo la quoatloa Hy Krs* R«»o)» flmd eharg-
iBg plaintiff viitb perjury la tat« ta^tlBOiiy oa tlM trial of th.<» enaae
as to hlo o^nernhlp of %hp. aatoaobile and kia nttoraay with Blsceaduoi
la that he edTlsod Xro* Reae to rosata out of the etate ao that aho
»oul4 net l»e a-r»llahlo ao a witaooe to testify ao to who vaa the real
owaer of the oar*

Two questloaa prsa^dat themn iTos on thle record* JTlrett
«oro the facte set forth la the affldaTlte and petit loa filed by
defendnat euff leleat to aathoriso the eoart to raoate the Jadipeeat
of prll 9, 19Mt 9n the groaad of plalatlff'a allecod fraad and
porJaryT Soeend^ wao the order eatered J^iao 18 « 1934. » apcm
defendant* B aotlea of May a2« 1^54 » to Taeate the Judgment an
appealahle order?

Par. 82» eh. 77f «ith-HUrd*e 19Z7> TOSi l^ev. tatutoo

of llllnole Is aa follo«o«

"Hereafter erery Judgaon&f decree or order* final la its
nature* of nay eourt of record la any clrll or orlainal proceodlag
shall hare the aaao foroo aad affoot ae a oonoluaire adjudieatioa
apoa the «xplr<!itlea ef thirty doye front the data of its rsadltioa
as* under the Ihh heretofore a foroe* It has had upon the expiration
of the term of court at which It was rendered*"

aefeadaat does aot queatloa the soa^z'aI rule that uador
the ClTll Praotloe aot a oourt Is withoat Juried iotloa to Taoate or
sot aside Its Judfuont after the oxplrntlon of thirty days frui the
date of Its eatry* He expressly states that his aotlea to raoato
the Jttdffaeat was aot filed as a aotloa la the aature of a writ of
•rror ooraa aobls pareaaat to the teras of par* 196* ooo« TS* oh«
110* of the riTil Practlee aet* to correct errors of fact withla tho
oeateaplatloa of that sect Ion ef the act* bat he asserts that hlo
■etioa was grouaded oa a recogaixed exa«)ptloa to the general rule*
!•••* that Judgaente proeured hy fraud nay he raoatod at aay tlao*



)j»o« •III !t« JUi?^ ttdi no X(ra«<i^'*l t^^ a1 Xl^irfx^ <(' »i«XQ iflti

J o^i%«ie»& lor ^^Iw x^are-iit^ alA betJS' ^liCoatiSigm »/U !• qlHetxttfv^ «id •d a«

Isttn vdi 4i«v Mfv 0^ tt« X^l^^««»^ «^ »e9JB4lNr ill aA aitf«Xii^T«i Mf ^cn fttftw

«xa9 e<fs to xaxiv*

am iatMt^bul asU aiaoAT o# ^is-^tX «Si^ t;«»M 1n» oaldoat a*in«to»lEaft

frrSrbYO aXd[«X.!$:^(iCf;<!
».*^f,i =i .viv' .Xlil f.i'"«?f 8 »i - i'trtf-c'r/ i-ja ,^7 ,tfs> ^^SS «^Ul^

. „ >v. ..^i';! sjB at aloal^ - -
a4i /■; ! •■*'>.-.^^. "a^iuaavaS**

v

#i doiit^ la ItMaa )« jkoI aifi la

so @l«oi.:v ^'J aciioik»ix«^ ijndtiv r.i ttaott & 4oa ••X;;o«t^ XlrX9 MCf

)• ilrm $ la avalAiv «>tfi al it<btitin » aa bftXH Ion a«w ijcaai^btit <=
nito ^fiV «oft« 4^<7X «Ya({ t« imr^f ifA4 «f itMrnttttq. «i<ff 1^^ V*T«»
mH Aitfllw lflri>l \o RTrrrA «oR'itat> c:^ «laa •^Urmr'i XIW'* airfl !• t^iXl
«M l«f(l a#iaa«o a4 99t t^s>« Atfl ^9 s^ileani $adi 1t« ii«llaX««aii»«|



-3-

9rfA Bttbs«<i««iit to th« •xpiratlon of thirty dnj* froa tJu d«%o of
their entry* hy a propor ohovlag of sueh frmad to ilM oourt* Tko
fraud roXiod upon 1^ defajidaat ia his Motion to raoato tko Jud^nent
was tho alloffod perjury of plaintiff la Mm teatiaony aa to tho
own«rsliip of tho automotoilo* and %bm aXlogod fraud of plalatilf*s
attorney in c^Tioiog or iBttuelag lira* Hoae to resain ontMide of tho
Siato of Illinois so that «ho would not h« arailablo for tho oarYloo
of proeoos upon her to proeure her taetlnony as to the true o»nor-»
ohlp of the autoKObllo*

the 1&« ie settled tkai a cMrrt %mm no fowar to Taoato a
judgiMnt aftar the expiration of thirty days from the date of its
ontzy hecauBO of the perjury 9f a witnoes or ^ffitnoosoe on th<s trial
•f the caao. { CoiHHM|r v. aill^ 8S7 111» App# 606 1 P eople v. vmht
Sll 111* 54a •} As to the fraud that ^ould oonatituto a euffieient
reason for vacating a 4%id|paoBt after tho expire t ion of thirty dayo
fr«i tho date of iie renditiout it haw boon held that it Muat ho
frand eondittod hy one of the parties on tho oeurt*

dofoBdant oitoe ^jTriaht ▼• St«oeon > 20' 111* 96| Poaao t«
Roberta* 16 111* App. e54» and City of C hioayf ▼• Kodec^ . 208 111*
2S7» in support of his oontontion that the fraud allogod In tko
Inetsnt e»so vrae auf f ioient to authorise the trial court to Taoato
iho JudgMont.

'^e hare ear .^f ally oxa«iB«d these oases and ia none of
then are the faots onapfirablo to the facts in this onso* It io
true that in these e»aes the Judgsients wore raeated subsequent to
tho teras At vhieh they vore entered, bun the order in eaeh oaoo
yins authorized b«cn«8# of imnt of jurlsdlotion of tho court to enter
the Jttdgm-tnt or b«c«use of palpable fmud perpotrat'sd direetly upoa
tho court to secure the entry of tho Judgnoat. It naturelly follo«o4
in eaeh of thnse eaooe that tho fraud on tho court reeultod ia injury
to the aggriered party or to one who should haero b«on aado a party
but was not*



•4 tajm $i tjuti hJMi m»m4 nad ^i ,a&iith&,

.XAI fiofc! ,- -■■ httft ,M3 •^A .xi: Ji X.-,-. ■ '' -ii

»i 4n*Up^*n»*: s^tmmtfout, iMtl m*4i09 •««tfi ill fjBifl e»»nt4

•ftiM» ilr> . 9tev XMli iteiifv ;>» wsn9i •-

Xiurtffl Ai li«^XiM«rr «tjv«i> Mil r r^ja t«««9 ^ o ifviM t

XlK«q « •bMi ii«*tf ftiniC kXii o;f t« V^^^m b«T9i-ii«ga mC^






-4-



Her« both parties were before the court and participate*
in a fun heaxltm on the .erlto. athongh defendant allagec la hi.
petition to raoRte that he soTed for « coatlnuaaoo of th» trial
heoauoe of his failure to looat. Mro. Boeo. a Material «i.aea.» Uo
record dl^clo.es no auoh motion m h«ri«g ho^ «ad«. arantiag that
plaintiff is ch^geahle with the conduot of hlo attorney, the only
fraud a««erted la that said f^ttorney adrlaod ifra. Ro«e to raaaU out
of the Jurisdiction. Crm thU be hold to bo euoh a direct fra«i
upon the court itself ao would empower It to raeato the Judgmoat
•fter the expiration of thirty dr^oV ^Te think not. hllo the can-
rfuot of plaintiff, ae alleffed, »lght be conalderod roprehenelble,
and of his oounesl sharp practice in doprlring defendant of eyld.aoo
that would aid his cauoe, the eleawsat of «dlr«ct fraud upon the
court- iB entirely laehUf.

la ord.fr to oowi mthln the except Ion to the fundamental
rule that, where a final judgaeat h»e been rendered la a oauao and
thirty daye hayo elapsed fro« the date of ite ..atry. the court ao
loader has jurledlotlon to raoate ox ehaago Its jud^ont, the fraad
that would Titiato and au.hori.e the court to Taoate a Judpient after
it had beooao a -c^aoiueire adjudlcatloa" m^t bo auch a« affected
ih3 court* a Jurl«lUtloa to roaier it, or entorod aa an ele«ont lato
the Judgaent itself*

The notion to ▼aoate in this eaeo was aat addreeaod to tho
tqaltable powers of the court and plaintiff wn. afforded no oppor-
tunity to raise an iosiM apoa the facts allogod la defendant's petition
end affld^Tlto. If defeal«at hae a nerltorlous eonplalaft» by reaooa
•f nemtlff*, purported fraud, he has an appropriate renMy in a
eeurt of equity.

In diecuealnff this queetlon in Bownan t. llson . M 111. T5,
tJw o«art oaid at pp. ?• and 79t



ttii 0t Kwv^lla iiii9tm9i»b tkworUl- ,a4t%»ai rnds »• 'Hfik-mmSL XXwl « si



Online LibraryIllinois Appellate CourtIllinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.280) → online text (page 23 of 54)