#### Richard G. Steudle, trading as Richard G. Steudle & Company, Defendant in Error, v. Charles Manthie and Mrs. Charles Manthie, Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 19,195.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry C. Moran, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.

Reversed.

Opinion filed March 31, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Richard Gr. Stendle, trading as Richard Gr. Stendle & Company, against Charles Manthie and Mrs. Charles Manthie to recover the sum of $42.50 alleged to be due for work and materials furnished in repairing an automobile owned by the defendants. Suit was dismissed for want of prosecution and judgment entered in favor of defendant for cost. Three months and twenty-three days after the entry of the order, on motion of plaintiff, the court vacated the order of dismissal and judgment and reinstated the cause without any petition or affidavits being filed in support of his motion to vacate the order, and without any showing made by him, upon which the trial court based its action. To reverse the order vacating the judgment, defendant brings error.

*577Abstract of the Decision.

Municipal Court op Chicago, § 19 * —mode of vacating judgments after thirty days from time of entry. After thirty days from the entry of a judgment in the Municipal Court, the court has no jurisdiction to vacate the judgment and reinstate the cause without a petition and affidavits being filed in support of a motion to vacate the same. Section 21 of the Municipal Court Act, J. & A. j[ 3333, provides for the only method of giving to the Municipal Court jurisdiction to vacate judgments after thirty days from the entry thereof.

Eliot H. Evans, for plaintiffs in error.

N. A. Stern, for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.