#### Charles B. Stafford et al., trading as Sabath, Levinson & Stafford, Appellants, v. Barbara Vacek et al., Appellees.

Gen. No. 20,876.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Cavebly, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.

Suit dismissed and stricken from docket.

Opinion filed April 13, 1915.

*238Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and error, § 633 * -—when court without power to allow appeal nunc pro tunc. The Municipal Court of Chicago is without jurisdiction to order the entering of an order nunc pro tunc allowing an appeal from a judgment rendered more than a year prior to such order, no such order having in fact been made within the statutory period.

2. Motions, § 12*—what is function of nunc pro tunc order. The office of an order nunc pro tunc is simply to validate an actual proceeding already taken and not to cure a defect caused by failure to take such proceeding.

Statement of the Case.

The plaintiffs, Charles B. Stafford, Adolph J. Sabath, Harry C. Levinson and Albert Sabath, trading as Sabath, Levinson & Stafford, having had, in an action against Barbara Vacek, Anna Vacek and Hattie Vacek, a judgment rendered against them in the Municipal Court, filed in the Appellate Court a transcript of the proceedings had, which was defective in that it did not show that an appeal had been taken. After a motion made by the defendants for dismissal, the plaintiffs were granted leave to and did file an additional transcript which, however, failed to show any order, allowing an appeal, made prior to the granting by the Appellate Court of leave to file the additional transcript. It showed, however, a provision for filing a bond and a bill of exceptions and contained an order entered nunc pro tunc allowing an appeal more than one year after entry of judgment.

Sabath, Stafford & Sabath, for appellants.

Q. J. Chott and Anton Zeman, for appellees.

*

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.