{ "id": 5785801, "name": "William H. Bartlett and Frank P. Frazier v. John Keating", "name_abbreviation": "Bartlett v. Keating", "decision_date": "1899-01-09", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "642", "last_page": "644", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "79 Ill. App. 642" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "115 Ill. 355", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2878590 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/115/0355-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 Ill. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3161771 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/175/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 Ill. 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3007343 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/139/0171-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 213, "char_count": 4079, "ocr_confidence": 0.543, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08, "percentile": 0.4380012116536524 }, "sha256": "b89e9a10dbaa53fb0130fa7e7368639bbc708e166309e46031bdcc8beb05a681", "simhash": "1:49c64c7c2b4694c0", "word_count": 732 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:55:44.895596+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "William H. Bartlett and Frank P. Frazier v. John Keating." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Sears\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe record shows a judgment in the court below against three\u2014the two appellants and one Daniher. It shows, also, an appeal to this court, prayed by and allowed to all three of the judgment defendants. But the appeal is prosecuted by two only, and in their names alone.\nAppellee asks that the appeal be dismissed. Upon this state of the record we think that this must be done. While, under the terms of our statute, one of several parties to a judgment may appeal, and for that purpose may be permitted to use the names of the parties not desiring to join in the appeal, yet when several defendants pray an appeal jointly, and it is allowed to them jointly, and the appeal is sought to be perfected by a part only, the effort to thus perfect the appeal is unavailing. McIntyre v. Sholty, 139 Ill. 171; Town v. Howieson, 175 Ill. 85.\nIn the former case the court said :\n\u201c All the plaintiffs or defendants in the original suit who are alive, must join in the writ of error, and it is competent for one to join the others without their consent. The reasons for this rule are, that the writ must agree with the record, and that, if one of a number of plaintiffs, or one of a number of defendants, who have not distinct and several interests, should be permitted to bring a writ of error, every one might do the same, and such a practice would tend to multiply suits. If the parties whose names are thus used by a co-plaintiff or co-defendant choose to abide an erroneous judgment, and refuse to appear and assign errors, they must be summoned and severed, and then after the severance the writ may be prosecuted in the name of such co-plaintiff or co-defendant.\u201d\nIn the latter case the court said, quoting from Hileman v. Beale, 115 Ill. 355:\n\u201c The right to an appeal is strictly statutory, and a party, to avail himself of this privilege, must conform to the order of the court which the statute authorizes it to prescribe.\u201d\nIn the case under consideration, the order of-the court allowed an appeal to all three of the judgment defendants. Ho such appeal has been perfected.\nThe appeal is dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Sears" } ], "attorneys": [ "George P. Merrick, attorney for appellants.", "James Maher and J. W. Downey, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "William H. Bartlett and Frank P. Frazier v. John Keating.\n1. Appeals\u2014By Several Defendants Jointly.\u2014Under the terms of our statute, one of several parties to a judgment may appeal, and for that purpose may be permitted to use the names of the parties not desiring to join in the appeal; yet when several defendants pray am appeal jointly, and it is allowed to them jointly, and the appeal is sought to be perfected by a part only, the effort to thus perfect the appeal is unavailing.\n2. Same\u2014One of Several Defendants May Join Others, etc.\u2014 All the plaintiffs or defendants in the original suit, who are alive, must join in the appeal or writ of error, and it is competent for one to join the others without their consent.\n3. Same\u2014Reasons for the Rule.\u2014The reasons for this rule are, the writ must agree with the record, and if one of a number of plaintiffs, or one of a number of defendants, who have not distinct and several interests, should be permitted to appeal or bring a writ of error, every one might do the same, and such a practice would tend to multiply suits.\n4. Same\u2014When the Parties Must he Summoned.\u2014If the parties whose names are thus used by a co-plaintiff or co-defendant choose to abide an erroneous judgment, and refuse to appear and assign errors, they must be summoned and severed, and then after the severance the writ maybe prosecuted in the name of such co-plaintiff or co-defendant.\n5. Same\u2014The Right Statutory.\u2014The right to an appeal is strictly statutory, and a party, to avail himself of such right, must conform to the order of the court which the statute authorizes it to prescribe.\nAssumpsit, for grain sold and delivered. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1898.\nDismissed.\nOpinion filed January 9, 1899.\nGeorge P. Merrick, attorney for appellants.\nJames Maher and J. W. Downey, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0642-01", "first_page_order": 652, "last_page_order": 654 }