Rowley v. Hughes, 40 Ill. 71 (1866)

April 1866 · Illinois Supreme Court

40 Ill. 71

Rowley v. Hughes.

(April Term, 1866.)

1. Withdrawing transcript for amendment. The transcript of a record filed in this court cannot he withdrawn from the files for the purpose of amendment.

2. Omission from the record—Turn supplied. If matter of record in the court helow has heen omitted from the transcript, the clerk of that court can copy such omitted matter, together with such other portion of the record as may he necessary to show the relation of the omitted portion to the cause, and certify it accordingly.

-3. Certiorari—not necessary, to bring up an amended record. No writ of certiorari is necessary to bring up the amended record, hut the party interested in so doing can file it as an additional or amended record, and it will be considered in connection with the original transcript.

Counsel for the plaintiff in error suggested to the court that the clerk in the court helow in transcribing the record and proceedings therein, had omitted to copy the seal of the officer who took the acknowledgment of a deed which appears in the transcript, and asked leave to withdraw the transcript with a view to its amendment in that regard.

Per Curiam: :

It is not according to the practice of the court to permit the transcript of the record to be withdrawn for the purpose indicated. The clerk below can copy the certificate of acknowledgment, and the deed itself, if that should appear necessary to show its identity with that now in the record, and attach the seal which has been omitted, and certify it accordingly.

Counsel then inquired if it would be necessary for a writ of certiorari to issue for the purpose of bringing up the additional transcript.

Per Curlam: : No writ of certiorari is necessary; the party interested in making the amendment can file it as an additional or amended record, and it will be considered in connection with the original transcript.