law writ error in Illinois

1980The leading case interpreting section 72 as incorporating the common law writ of error coram nobis, which was designed to correct errors occurring in a trial which would not have been committed had the trial court been in possession of certain facts unknown to it at trial, is People v. Touhy (1947), 397 Ill. 19 , 72 Ill. 2d 827 , cert, denied (1947), 332 U.S. 791 , 92 L.

1974In People v. Touhy (1947), 397 Ill. 19, at 28 , 72 N.E.2d 827 at 832 , a criminal case, the court stated: “[T]he contention is not well taken that the common law writ of error coram nobis, or its statutoiy substitute in this State, is available as a remedy for newly discovered evidence or for alleged perjured testimony.

1941(Sixby v. Chicago City Railway Co. 260 Ill. 478 .) The omission of the words “and writs of error” in the Civil Practice - act, does not change the rule prevailing prior to its adoption.

1927(Mirich v. Forschner Contracting Co. supra; Sixby v. Chicago City Railway Co. 260 Ill. 478 ; State of Illinois v. Ajster, 318 id. 230; Haines v. People, 97 id. 161.) The right to have this judgment re-' viewed upon a common law writ of error was a vested property right, of which plaintiff in error could only be divested by a failure to sue out such writ within the time prescribed by law for so doing.

1980The leading case interpreting section 72 as incorporating the common law writ of error coram nobis, which was designed to correct errors occurring in a trial which would not have been committed had the trial court been in possession of certain facts unknown to it at trial, is People v. Touhy (1947), 397 Ill. 19 , 72 Ill. 2d 827 , cert, denied (1947), 332 U.S. 791 , 92 L.

1965ENGLISH and DRUCKER, JJ., concur. * In People v. Lewis, supra, our Supreme Court stated that “Considerable confusion exists among American eases as to the availability of relief from a judgment based on perjured testimony.” We do not think the opinion in that ease has eliminated the confusion since no reference is made in the opinion to People v. Touhy, 397 Ill 19, 72 NE2d 827 , cert den 68 S Ct 99 , and rehearing den 68 S Ct 205 , in" which case the court stated that the common law writ of error coram nobis or its statutory substitute is not “available as a remedy for newly discovered evidenc

1975In Williams v. People, 31 Ill.2d 516 , 202 N.E.2d 468 (1964), a prisoner obtained an affidavit from his brother that it was the brother who committed the crime of which the prisoner was convicted.

1975In Williams v. People, 31 Ill.2d 516 , 202 N.E.2d 468 (1964), a prisoner obtained an affidavit from his brother that it was the brother who committed the crime of which the prisoner was convicted.

1975In People v. Sheppard, 405 Ill. 79 , 90 N.E.2d 78 (1950), it was held that neither the common law writ of error coram nobis nor its statutory substitute in section 72 of the Civil Practice Act were designed as means for correcting alleged false testimony or for procuring a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence.

1975In People v. Sheppard, 405 Ill. 79 , 90 N.E.2d 78 (1950), it was held that neither the common law writ of error coram nobis nor its statutory substitute in section 72 of the Civil Practice Act were designed as means for correcting alleged false testimony or for procuring a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence.

1960While the former Act was still in force the Supreme Court decided the case of Ellman v. De Ruiter, 412 Ill. 285 .

1959The scope and purpose of the statutory petition substituted for the common law writ of error coram nobis was outlined by the Supreme Court in Ellman v. De Ruiter, 412 Ill. 285, 291 , where the court stated: “While it has been held that the essentials of procedure remain the same despite the abolition of the writ, (Mitchell v. King, 187 Ill. 452 ,) the use of the motion has not been restricted to the narrow confines of its common-law antecedent.

1980The leading case interpreting section 72 as incorporating the common law writ of error coram nobis, which was designed to correct errors occurring in a trial which would not have been committed had the trial court been in possession of certain facts unknown to it at trial, is People v. Touhy (1947), 397 Ill. 19 , 72 Ill. 2d 827 , cert, denied (1947), 332 U.S. 791 , 92 L.

1980Ed. 372 , 68 S. Ct. 99 .

1974We have this day, in People v. Gleitsman, 396 Ill. 499 , reaffirmed this court’s adherence to the rule that a writ of error coram nobis does not lie to correct false testimony, nor for newly discovered evidence.” Accord People v. Sheppard, 405 Ill. 79 , 90 N.E.2d 78, 1950 ; Williams v. People, 31 Ill.2d 516 , 202 N.E.2d 468, 1964 ; People v. Colletti, 48 Ill.2d 135 , 268 N.E.2d 397, 1971 .

1974We have this day, in People v. Gleitsman, 396 Ill. 499 , reaffirmed this court’s adherence to the rule that a writ of error coram nobis does not lie to correct false testimony, nor for newly discovered evidence.” Accord People v. Sheppard, 405 Ill. 79 , 90 N.E.2d 78, 1950 ; Williams v. People, 31 Ill.2d 516 , 202 N.E.2d 468, 1964 ; People v. Colletti, 48 Ill.2d 135 , 268 N.E.2d 397, 1971 .

1974We have this day, in People v. Gleitsman, 396 Ill. 499 , reaffirmed this court’s adherence to the rule that a writ of error coram nobis does not lie to correct false testimony, nor for newly discovered evidence.” Accord People v. Sheppard, 405 Ill. 79 , 90 N.E.2d 78, 1950 ; Williams v. People, 31 Ill.2d 516 , 202 N.E.2d 468, 1964 ; People v. Colletti, 48 Ill.2d 135 , 268 N.E.2d 397, 1971 .

1965ENGLISH and DRUCKER, JJ., concur. * In People v. Lewis, supra, our Supreme Court stated that “Considerable confusion exists among American eases as to the availability of relief from a judgment based on perjured testimony.” We do not think the opinion in that ease has eliminated the confusion since no reference is made in the opinion to People v. Touhy, 397 Ill 19, 72 NE2d 827 , cert den 68 S Ct 99 , and rehearing den 68 S Ct 205 , in" which case the court stated that the common law writ of error coram nobis or its statutory substitute is not “available as a remedy for newly discovered evidenc

1965ENGLISH and DRUCKER, JJ., concur. * In People v. Lewis, supra, our Supreme Court stated that “Considerable confusion exists among American eases as to the availability of relief from a judgment based on perjured testimony.” We do not think the opinion in that ease has eliminated the confusion since no reference is made in the opinion to People v. Touhy, 397 Ill 19, 72 NE2d 827 , cert den 68 S Ct 99 , and rehearing den 68 S Ct 205 , in" which case the court stated that the common law writ of error coram nobis or its statutory substitute is not “available as a remedy for newly discovered evidenc

1965ENGLISH and DRUCKER, JJ., concur. * In People v. Lewis, supra, our Supreme Court stated that “Considerable confusion exists among American eases as to the availability of relief from a judgment based on perjured testimony.” We do not think the opinion in that ease has eliminated the confusion since no reference is made in the opinion to People v. Touhy, 397 Ill 19, 72 NE2d 827 , cert den 68 S Ct 99 , and rehearing den 68 S Ct 205 , in" which case the court stated that the common law writ of error coram nobis or its statutory substitute is not “available as a remedy for newly discovered evidenc

1960App. 383 ; Wagner v. Sulka, supra. Section 72 of the Civil Practice Act in force before the revision of 1956 abolished only the common law writ of error coram nobis and did not contain the provisions in the present Act providing that the grounds for relief available either in law or in equity shall be-available in any action brought under this section.

1959The scope and purpose of the statutory petition substituted for the common law writ of error coram nobis was outlined by the Supreme Court in Ellman v. De Ruiter, 412 Ill. 285, 291 , where the court stated: “While it has been held that the essentials of procedure remain the same despite the abolition of the writ, (Mitchell v. King, 187 Ill. 452 ,) the use of the motion has not been restricted to the narrow confines of its common-law antecedent.

1934Neither section 21 of the Municipal Court act nor section 89 of the Practice act abolishes the essentials of the proceeding under the common law writ of error coram, nobis, (People v. Sullivan, 339 Ill. 146 ; Mitchell v. King, 187 id. 452;) but errors such as might have been corrected by that writ may now be reached by motion or petition.

1929(McGinnis v. McGinnis, 289 Ill. 608 ; Liska v. Chicago Railways Co. 318 id. 570.) Where, however, the Appellate Court by its judgment deprives one of the parties of a constitutional right and a constitutional question is injected into the case for the first time by the judgment of the Appellate Court, such party has the right to have such judgment reviewed upon a common law writ of error.

1929Mirich v. Forschner Contracting Co. 312 Ill. 343 ; Segal v. Chicago City Railway Co. 325 id. 43.

1918(Myers v. Newcomb Drainage District, 245 Ill. 140 ; Erlinger v. St.

1896Morgan v. Campbell, 54 Ill.