TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lang v. Max

Lang v. Max, 50 Ill. App. 465 (1893)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 12, 1893
Judges
Shepard
Citations
50 Ill. App. 4651893 Ill. App. LEXIS 456
Headnotes
1. Assignment of Error—Absence of from, the Record.—An assignment of eiTor in this court performs the same office as a declaration in a court of ordinary jurisdiction, and it would be just as regular and proper for the Circuit Court to render a judgment in a cause where there is no declaration, as for this court to affirm or reverse a judgment where there is no assignment of error. 2. Assignment of Error—Failure to Assign.—A failure to assign errors upon the record is not a mere form that can be waived, but a matter of substance; nor is it sufficient that errors are set forth in the abstract. No error can be considered except such as has been assigned on the record. 3. Assignment of Errors—Leave to Assign Instanter.—Where errors are not assigned, the appellant, upon his attention, being called to it, may apply for leave to assign errors instanter. 4. Assignment of Errors—Waiver.—Where the appellee expressly insists in his brief upon the point that no errors are assigned upon the record, he does not waive the point by filing his brief.
Summary
Memorandum.—Assumpsit. In the Superior Court of Cook County. Declaration and pleas of general issue and set-off; trial by court; finding and judgment for plaintiff; appeal by plaintiff. Heard in this court at the March term, 1893, and affirmed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Shepard

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion of the Court, Shepard, J. There is no assignment of errors upon the record of this cause, and hence nothing for this court to act upon.

“ An assignment of error in this court performs the same office as a declaration in a court of original jurisdiction,” and “ it would be just as regular and proper for the Circuit Court to render a judgment in a cause where there is no declaration, as for this court to affirm or reverse a judgment where there is no assignment of errors.” Williston v. Fisher, 28 Ill. 43 ; Conlon v. Manning, 43 Ill. App. 363 .

A failure to assign errors upon the record is not a mere form that can be waived but a matter of substance; nor is it sufficient that errors are set forth in the abstract. It has been repeatedly held that no error can be considered except such as have been assigned on the record. Ditch v. Sennott, 116 Ill. 288 , and cases there cited; Anderson v. Olin, 46 Ill. App. 283 ; Wilcox v. Moore, 44 Ill. App. 293 ; Waixel v. Harrison, 35 Ill. App. 571 ; Conlon v. Manning, supra.

And here there was no waiver; the appellee expressly insists, in his brief, upon the point that no errors have been assigned upon the record.

When the attention of appellant’s counsel was called to the fact that no errors were assigned upon the record, by appellee’s brief, he might have applied for leave to assign errors instanter. Ditch v. Sennott, supra; Anderson v. Olin, supra. But he did not do so.

Although without power to decide anything in this case bécause of the absence of a proper assignment of errors upon the record, we have examined the record and briefs on both sides, sufficiently to enable us to say the appeal seems to be without merit, and, as was said in Sterling v. Strauss, 41 Ill. App. 147 , “ probably it will not be worth while to bring the case here again.”

The appeal will be dismissed at the cost of appellant.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1894: 11895: 11896: 31898: 11901: 11941: 118942026peak 1896 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. Meehan77 Ill. App. 577 (1898)
  2. Sidway v. American Mortgage Co. of Scotland67 Ill. App. 24 (1896)
  3. Cessna v. Benedict98 Ill. App. 440 (1901)
  4. Munger v. Supancicz64 Ill. App. 661 (1896)
  5. Brown v. H. W. Boies Co.58 Ill. App. 274 (1895)
  6. Oakland Hotel Co. v. Driscoll67 Ill. App. 114 (1896)

Most recent

  1. Dressor v. Baldwin32 N.E.2d 959 (Ill. App. Ct. 1941)
  2. Cessna v. Benedict98 Ill. App. 440 (1901)
  3. Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. Meehan77 Ill. App. 577 (1898)
  4. Oakland Hotel Co. v. Driscoll67 Ill. App. 114 (1896)
  5. Sidway v. American Mortgage Co. of Scotland67 Ill. App. 24 (1896)
  6. Munger v. Supancicz64 Ill. App. 661 (1896)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
Ditch v. Sennott, 116 Ill. 288 (1886) 39
Conlon v. Manning, 43 Ill. App. 363 (1891) 6
Anderson v. Olin, 46 Ill. App. 283 (1892) 1
Williston v. Fisher, 28 Ill. 43 (1862) 13
Waixel v. Harrison, 35 Ill. App. 571 (1890) 4
Sternberg v. Strauss, 41 Ill. App. 147 (1891) 2
Wilcox v. Moore, 44 Ill. App. 293 (1892) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list