{ "id": 856685, "name": "United States Life Insurance Company v. Sophia J. Shattuck", "name_abbreviation": "United States Life Insurance v. Shattuck", "decision_date": "1895-01-28", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "382", "last_page": "385", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "57 Ill. App. 382" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "84 Ill. 479", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2655936 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/84/0479-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Ill. 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5260267 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/39/0554-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 Ill. 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2812834 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/102/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ill. App. 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5115608 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/51/0426-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 Ill. 123", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2964248 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/129/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 Ill. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5387161 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/121/0321-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 358, "char_count": 6376, "ocr_confidence": 0.491, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3276918581298609e-07, "percentile": 0.6282910702515861 }, "sha256": "57a80139f8b5895e2b69ce9d9c44dc87c765d141a5bda139455e01ee2d8b8323", "simhash": "1:9939acf06832331a", "word_count": 1144 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:41.767696+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "United States Life Insurance Company v. Sophia J. Shattuck." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe judgment for the appellee was entered March 17, 1894, and the appellant then prayed and was allowed, an appeal, \u201c its bill of exceptions to be filed within sixty days of this date.\u201d\nOn the loth day of May, the judge who presided at the trial of this cause was-presiding in the Criminal Court of Cook County, in the Criminal Court building, which, as we judicially know, is upon the other side of the river, distant nearly half a mile from the court house of the county of Cook, in which the Superior Court is held. Mo contingency upon which the Superior Court might be held elsewhere, under Secs. 4 and 5 of \u201c an act to revise the law in relation to Circuit Courts and the Superior Court of Cook County,\u201d approved February 16, 1874, had happened.\nOn that 15th day of May, the counsel of the appellant presented to that judge, at the Criminal Court, a paper as follows:\n\u201c State of Illinois, 1 gg Countf of Cook, (\nIn the Superior Court of Cook County, to the March term, A. I). 1894.\nSophia J. Shattuck vs. U. S. Life Ins. Co.\nLeave to extend time for filing bill of exceptions in the above entitled cause, extended from. sixty days as granted, to eighty days, on motion of the defendant\u2019s attorney.\u201d\nUpon which paper that judge made this notation :\n\u201c Enter May 15, \u201994. J. B. P.\u201d\nthese letters being the initials of his name.\nMay 17th, that paper was presented to and filed by the clerk of the Superior Court.\nMay 28th, an order entitled in the cause, was entered on the record of the Superior Court, extending the time for filing the bill of exceptions to June 15th. On the 13th day of June, the judge, under such circumstances as may fairly be held to amount to an acquiesence by the counsel of the appellee in his act, signed the bill.\nHere the appellee has moved to strike it out. Much of the argument here is as to the power of the judge, when presiding in the Criminal Court, and absent from the Superior Court, t\u00f3 do any act that would be effectual as an act of the Superior Court.\nIn our view he had no such power. Extending the time originally limited for filing a bill of exceptions is a judicial act, which can only be performed by the judge in term time, when sitting as a court (Hake v. Strube, 121 Ill. 321), and before the time originally limited has expired. Hawes v. People, 129 Ill. 123.\nThe judge is not the court, carrying the judicial function around wherever he goes. Feltenstein v. Stein, 51 Ill. App. 426. It is not a personal characteristic, like the odor of sanctity. \u201c Courts are political agencies\u2014mere legal entities\u2014established under the constitution for governmental purposes, and in contemplation of law have a separate existence from the judges who preside over them; otherwise, when the judge of a court dies, the court itself would cease. A judge, therefore, has no judicial power outside of the court in which he officiates. He is the tangible, living oracle of the court. He speaks and acts for it, and in law is its only accredited agent. When discharging the judicial function of his office, he is the court in concrete form, and in this sense he is often called the court, but strictly and technically speaking, the judge and the court are wholly distinct.\u201d Bowman v. Venice & Carondelet Ry., 102 Ill. 459.\nWith some exceptions specially provided for, the law requires that the court shall be held in the court house. Sec. 3 of the act cited.\nThe judge goes where he will, and the court over which he presides ceases action, to be resumed only when he or another, by law qualified, again presides. Wight v. Wallbaum, 39 Ill. 554; Meredith v. People, 84 Ill. 479.\nThe acquiescence of the counsel of the appellee\u2014before referred to\u2014is not sufficient to validate the bill. Hake v. Strubel, 121 Ill. 321.\nAll the matters relied upon by the appellant for a reversal of the judgment are such as can appear only by a bill of exceptions; the motion to strike it out is sustained, and the judgment affirmed.\nMe. Presiding Justice Waterman.\nAll that is so well said by Mr. Justice Gary as to the distinction between the judge and the court I acquiesce in. I concur in the order striking the bill of exceptions from the files, because it appears that the judge of the Superior Court not only made the order extending the time for the filing of a bill of exceptions at a time and place when and where he was not holding a branch of the Superior Court, but that such order was not communicated to and did not reach or appear upon any of the files or memoranda of the clerk of the Superior Court until after the time for the filing of such bill had expired; and so far as the record here presented shows such order has never been spread upon the records of the Superior Court.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Gary Me. Presiding Justice Waterman." } ], "attorneys": [ "Seth F. Crews, attorney for appellant.", "Weigley, Bulkley & Gray, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "United States Life Insurance Company v. Sophia J. Shattuck.\n1. Bill of Exceptions\u2014Extending the Time for Signing the Same a Judicial Act.\u2014Extending the time for signing a bill of exceptions is a judicial act, which can only be performed by the judge in term time, when sitting as a court.\n2. Court\u2014The Judge is Not.\u2014The judge is not the court, carrying the judicial function around with him wherever he goes. Courts are political agencies established under the constitution for governmental purposes, and, in contemplation of law, have a separate existence from the judges who preside over them.\n3. Courts\u2014Where to he Held.\u2014With some exceptions, 'specially provided for, the law requires the court to be held at the court house; when the judge goes, the court over which he presides ceases action, to be resumed only when he or another, qualified by law, again presides.\n4. Judicial Acts\u2014Extending Time to Sign Bill of Exceptions Out of Court, Void.\u2014When the judge who presided at the trial of a cause hi the Superior Court, while sitting in the Criminal Court, signed an order granting leave to extend the time for filing a bill of exceptions, it was held that such act was extra-judicial, and the bill of exceptions signed within the time so extended was stricken out.\nMemorandum.\u2014Motion to strike out bill of exceptions. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and allowed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nOpinion filed January 28, 1895.\nSeth F. Crews, attorney for appellant.\nWeigley, Bulkley & Gray, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0382-01", "first_page_order": 378, "last_page_order": 381 }