Peterson v. Dugan, 67 Ill. App. 633 (1896)

Dec. 28, 1896 · Illinois Appellate Court

67 Ill. App. 633

William F. Peterson and Paul Radowitz v. John. V. Dugan.

1. Bill of Exceptions—What Does Not Constitute.—In a roll of papers certified by a circuit clerk upon the back of a copy of an affidavit was a date and the word “ approved,” followed by the signature and seal of a judge of the Circuit Court, and upon the back of the assignment of errors were the words “ presented in open court the 22d of September, 1896,” followed by the signature and seal of the judge. Held that the papers so marked did not constitute a bill of exceptions.

Motion, to set aside judgment by default. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at October term, 1896.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 28, 1896.

Statement of the Case.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment by confession, and allow the appellant Peterson to come in and plead to the narr. filed in the case.

Judgment by confession was entered December 19, 1895, against appellant, for $300.25 and $13 costs.

D. T. Duncombe, attorney for appellants.

Henry M. Shabad, attorney for appellee.

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

There is in this case no bill of exceptions. Heither the affidavits nor the copies of the same presented to the court below are before this court.

In the roll certified by the clerk, upon the back of what seems to be a copy of an affidavit, we find the following, in figures: A date, whether the 24th or 25th of “ Sep., ’96,” we are unable to determine, the word “ approved,” followed by the signature and seal of a judge of the Circuit Court.

This paper appears to have been, filed in the Circuit Court September 24, 1896.

We also find upon the back of the assignment of errors, the words “ Presented in open court the 22d of September, 1896,” followed by the signature and seal of the judge.

Evidently some one in presenting what was designed for a bill of exceptions, has made a mistake.

The order of the Circuit Court refusing to set aside the judgment, is affirmed.