Blair v. Reading
Illinois Supreme Court
Blair v. Reading, 96 Ill. 130 (Ill. 1880)
Craig
Blair v. Reading
Opinion of the Court
We do not understand it to be the duty of the plaintiff in error to file his abstracts and briefs, unless the other party is in court. The plaintiff was present in court on the day the cause was called, and had no notice, or any evidence that there had been any service. Under the circumstances the plaintiff in error can not be considered as in default by reason of not having filed his abstracts and briefs.
Motion denied.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Novel Blair v. James N. Reading
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Practice in the Supreme Court—time of filing briefs and abstracts. A cause pending upon writ of error was continued upon the ground that there was no evidence of service of the scire facias. Subsequently it was made to appear that service was had in due time, and thereupon the defendant in error moved that the continuance be set aside, and that the judgment be affirmed, because the plaintiff in error had failed to file abstracts and briefs as required by the rule: Held, it was not the duty of the plaintiff to file abstracts and briefs, unless the other party were in court, and having no notice of the service of the scire facias on the call of the cause, he was not in default by reason of the omission.