{ "id": 2525857, "name": "Henry F. Benton v. The Delta & Pine Land Co. et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Benton v. Delta & Pine Land Co.", "decision_date": "1906-11-07", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 12,737", "first_page": "341", "last_page": "343", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "129 Ill. App. 341" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "39 Ill. App. 260", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5016033 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/39/0260-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 Ill. 310", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3215433 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "374" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/182/0310-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 255, "char_count": 4170, "ocr_confidence": 0.493, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08, "percentile": 0.39272135170814976 }, "sha256": "1f5f589401d2217b0fee24ecd1a38bec4a3a42d633c9600c756413251a5b853c", "simhash": "1:404bb7e87afd1a9d", "word_count": 742 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:26:23.218976+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Henry F. Benton v. The Delta & Pine Land Co. et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal prosecuted hy Henry F. Benton, one of the defendants below, from a decree of the Superior Court entered July 7, 1905, that the defendants interplead pursuant to the prayer of the bill filed by appellee, The Delta & Pine Land Company, on February 17, 1903.\nMotions were made by appellees, Susan D. Benton and The Delta & Pine Land Company, to dismiss the appeal, and the motions were reserved to the hearing.\nOne ground urged in support of both motions is that appellant did not file an authenticated copy of the record aiid decree appealed from in the office of the clerk of this court on or before the second day of the October term, 1905, of this court, and did not on or before the second day of said October term obtain further time in which to file said record.\nMore than twenty days intervened between the last day of the July term of the Superior Court at which the decree was entered and the October term 1905 of this court.\nWhat is termed by the clerk of the Superior Court as a \u201ctranscript of the short record,\u201d consisting of an authenticated copy of the decree, the order allowing the appeal, and the appeal bond, was filed in this court on October 4,1905. No order was obtained from this court on or before the second day of the October term 1905, extending the time of appellant in which to file the \u201crecord of the order\u201d within the meaning of section 72 of the Practice Act, nor was any motion entered for further time in which to bring in and file the remaining portion of the-record, on or before the second day of said October term.\nOn January 5,1906, on motion of appellant for leave to file an additional record making with the \u201cshort record\u201d filed October 4, 1905, a complete record of the case, and upon a stipulation that such order might be made by the other parties to the cause, leave to file the additional record was granted, and the additional record was filed on that day.\nOn January 18, 1906, and on January 31, 1906, the motions to dismiss the appeal were filed respectively.\nWe are compelled to hold on the authority of Furthman v. McNulta, 182 Ill. 310, and Thomas v. O\u2019Brien Lumber Co., 185 id. 374, that the appeal has not been perfected in accordance with section 72 of the Practice Act, and that the appeal must be dismissed.\nIt is insisted on behalf of appellant that the stipulation of appellees that the order of January 5, 1906, might be entered, relieved appellant from the effect of \u25a0non-compliance with the provisions of the statute as to the time in which a transcript of the record must be filed. With this contention we cannot agree. Upon this question that stipulation has no bearing, and if it had, it cannot be recognized as having any validity. The statute is peremptory that the appeal shall be dismissed if its provisions are not complied with in reference to filing the record. Chicago Sash, Door & Blind Mfg. Co. v. Shaw, 39 Ill. App. 260.\nWe do not think that because the complete record was on file before the making of the motions to dismiss the appeal, these motions are too late, under the practice in this state. Nor do we think these motions were made too late because not made until the dates named above.\nThe appeal is dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Smith" } ], "attorneys": [ "John S. Goodwin and William P. Black, for appellant; O. W. Kellogg, of counsel.", "Bobebt Bedeield, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Henry F. Benton v. The Delta & Pine Land Co. et al.\nGen. No. 12,737.\n1. Dimietutiokt of record\u2014when suggestion of, must he made. The suggestion of diminution of record and for leave to supplement the \u201cshort record\u201d hy the filing of a complete transcript, must be made on or before the second day of the term at which it is required that the appeal shall be perfected, and where the practice in this respect has not been observed, a dismissal will follow, notwithstanding the parties to the cause had stipulated to the completion of the transcript.\nBill of interpleader. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Axel Chytraus, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch' Appellate Court 'at the October term, 1905.\nAppeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed November 7, 1906,\nJohn S. Goodwin and William P. Black, for appellant; O. W. Kellogg, of counsel.\nBobebt Bedeield, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0341-01", "first_page_order": 357, "last_page_order": 359 }