William J. Lemp Brewing Co. v. Alliance Assurance Co., 192 Ill. App. 300 (1915)

April 22, 1915 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 20,610

192 Ill. App. 300

William J. Lemp Brewing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Alliance Assurance Company, Ltd., Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 20,610.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 26 ^* -—when stenographic report not filed in time. Under the Municipal Court Act, sec. 23, par. 6 (J. & A. ¶ 3335) providing for the signing and filing of a stenographic report upon application made within thirty days after the entry of a final order or judgment, “or within such further time as may, upon application therefor within said thirty days, be allowed by the court,” where judgment was entered May 23rd and on the same day an order was entered extending the time for filing the stenographic report to August 31st, a further order entered on stipulation August 7th, extending the time for filing the report to September 8th, is void.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry M. Fisher, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.

Stenographic report stricken and judgment affirmed.

Opinion filed April 22, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by William. J. Lemp Brewing Company, a corporation, against Alliance Assurance Company, Ltd., a corporation, for loss by fire on policy of insurance. In its affidavit of merits, defendant stated an appraisement by disinterested appraisers, as provided for in the policy; and an offer to pay the amount appraised. In an affidavit of reply, plaintiff denied notice of selection of appraisers or of the time appraisement would be made, and stated that he was not given an opportunity to be heard. Verdict for plaintiff and judgment on the verdict.

George D. Wellington, for plaintiff in error.

Thompson, Tyrrell & Chambers, for defendant in error.

* See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Pitch

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 26*—when party not estopped to object of failure to file report in time. The indorsement of “O. K.” upon a stenographic report by counsel for defendant in error does not estop the latter from objecting that it was not filed in time.

3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 26*—what does not create estoppel to move striking of report. The fact that counsel for defendant in error knowingly permitted plaintiff in error to “go to considerable expense in having printed the abstract of record and the brief and argument” does not estop defendant in error from moving to strike the stenographic report as not having been filed in time.