Unknown Heirs of Bowles v. Rouse

Illinois Supreme Court December 15, 1846

Unknown Heirs of Bowles v. Rouse, 8 Ill. 408 (Ill. 1846)

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

It is necessary that a person, either natural or articial, should prosecute a writ of error. There must be some definite person as plaintiff in error, against whom a judgment may be given.for costs in case the judgment b.elow should be affirmed. Leave is, however, given to amend the writ of error, whifch, if not done within ten days, the writ of error will be dismissed.

The motion to dismiss because a writ of error will not lie, is overruled.*

Motion overruled.

On the decision of this motion, the counsel, for the plaintiffs entered the appearance of Bobert L. Catherwood and Ellen Catherwood, his wife, as plaintiffs in this case.-

Reference

Full Case Name: The Unknown Heirs of Robert Bowles, in error v. Rudolphus Rouse, adm'r, &c. in error
Status: Published