{
  "id": 3215433,
  "name": "Edmund Furthman v. John McNulta, Receiver",
  "name_abbreviation": "Furthman v. McNulta",
  "decision_date": "1899-10-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "310",
  "last_page": "311",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. 310"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. 40",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        425819,
        425973
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "98"
        },
        {
          "page": "104"
        },
        {
          "page": "162"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/40/0040-02",
        "/ill/40/0040-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2634418
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/69/0332-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2993,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.599,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6343475431493036e-07,
      "percentile": 0.689530740981424
    },
    "sha256": "6bb782eeec5fa111920b83e1ee8c38ea8e50b506a8d076bfc9d0333ec29bde5d",
    "simhash": "1:e317daa394350858",
    "word_count": 525
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:53.011496+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edmund Furthman v. John McNulta, Receiver."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe appellant sought an appeal from an order entered in the superior court of Cook county in a proceeding instituted on motion of the purchaser of certain premises under a foreclosure decree to obtain a writ of assistance to enable such purchaser to obtain possession of the premises from appellant.\nUnder the provisions of section 72 of the Practice act the record of the order should have been filed in the Appellate Court for the First District on the second day of the March term, 1899, thereof. ' The appellant filed in that court on that day a certified copy of the. order entered by the superior court and a certified copy of the appeal bond approved by that court. The record of the order, within the meaning of said section 72, included the process, pleadings, orders of the court, etc., in the cause. (Vail v. Iglehart, 69 Ill. 332.) That which was filed did not constitute a \u201crecord of the order,\u201d nor was any motion entered on said second day of the said term for an extension of time, for cause shown, in which to file the record of the order appealed from. On the fourteenth day of April, 1899, no further steps having been taken, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. We have frequently ruled that in such state of the record the attempted appeal should be dismissed. (Adams v. Robertson, 40 Ill. 40; Cook v. Cook, 104 id. 98; Patterson v. Stewart, 104 id. 104; Gadwood v. Kerr, 181 id. 162.) It was not error to deny the motion of appellant, presented after the entry of the order of dismissal, for leave to file the remaining portion of the record. No motion was entered or reason suggested for the vacation of the order of dismissal. That order standing in full force, deprived the court of power to take further action in the case.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edmund Furthman, pro se.",
      "James M. Proudfit, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edmund Furthman v. John McNulta, Receiver.\nOpinion filed October 13, 1899\nRehearing denied December 8, 1899.\n1. Appeals and errors\u2014when record of order appealed from is not sufficient. The requirement of section 72 of the Practice act, that the record of an order appealed from shall be filed in the Appellate Court by the second day of the term, is not satisfied by filing a certified copy of the order and appeal bond, without the process, pleadings or orders made in the'cause; and unless the time for filing the record is extended for cause shown, the attempted appeal is properly dismissed.\n2. Same\u2014leave to file complete record cannot be had while order dismissing appeal is in force. While an order dismissing an appeal because of the appellant\u2019s failure to file the entire record remains in full force, the court is without power to grant the appellant leave to file the remaining portion of the record.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;\u2014heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Farlin Q. Ball, Judge, presiding.\nEdmund Furthman, pro se.\nJames M. Proudfit, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0310-01",
  "first_page_order": 310,
  "last_page_order": 311
}