common-law writ error in Illinois

1997People v. Bernatowicz, 413 Ill. 181 (1952).

1967The court stated in People v. Bernatowicz, 413 Ill. 181 , 184: "As to the civil or criminal nature of a post-conviction- proceeding, the remedy afforded by the Post-Conviction Hearing Act closely resembles that available under the common-law writ of error coram nobis.

1950(People v. Gleitsman, 396 Ill. 499 ; People v. Drysch, 311 Ill. 342 .) Again, the alleged incompetence of counsel upon the trial may be reviewed upon writ of error, but the issue is not open to consideration in a proceeding of this kind.

1947We 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.

1947Gorp., 385 Ill. 524 , on page 527 stated as follows: ‘ ‘‘It will be observed that the scope of inquiry on such a motion is limited to errors in fact, not appearing on the face of the record, committed in the proceeding, which errors in fact could have been inquired into by the common-law writ of error coram nobis.

1945Corp. 385 Ill. 524 , the scope of inquiry on such motion was defined as follows: “It will be observed that the scope of inquiry on such a motion is limited to errors in fact, not appearing on the face of the record, committed in the proceeding, which errors in fact could have been inquired into by the common-law writ of error coram nobis.

1975(Brockmeyer v. Duncan (1960), 18 Ill.2d 502 , 165 N.E.2d 294 .) The common-law writ of error coram nobis was used to bring to the attention of the court that entered the judgment, matters of fact not appearing of record, which, if known to the court, would have prevented it from rendering the judgment.

1975(Brockmeyer v. Duncan (1960), 18 Ill.2d 502 , 165 N.E.2d 294 .) The common-law writ of error coram nobis was used to bring to the attention of the court that entered the judgment, matters of fact not appearing of record, which, if known to the court, would have prevented it from rendering the judgment.

1975(Frandsen v. Anderson (1969), 108 Ill.App.2d 194 , 247 N.E.2d 183 .) It was also necessary that the error of fact could not have been discovered by the party seeking its benefit through the exercise of reasonable diligence, or it related to a defense or claim which was not presented because of fraud, duress, or excusable mistake.

1975(Frandsen v. Anderson (1969), 108 Ill.App.2d 194 , 247 N.E.2d 183 .) It was also necessary that the error of fact could not have been discovered by the party seeking its benefit through the exercise of reasonable diligence, or it related to a defense or claim which was not presented because of fraud, duress, or excusable mistake.

1958(Collins v. Collins, 14 Ill.2d 178 .) While the common-law writ of error coram nobis was heretofore used to correct errors of fact not appearing in the record, which, if known to the court at the time the judgment was entered, would have prevented its rendition, (Merkie v. People, post 539, (Nov. term, 1958) ; Ephraim v. People, 13 Ill.2d 456 ; Glenn v. People, 9 Ill.2d 335 ,) that remedy was not available to review questions of fact arising upon the pleadings or to contradict findings which appeared on the face of the judgment.

1958(Collins v. Collins, 14 Ill.2d 178 .) While the common-law writ of error coram nobis was heretofore used to correct errors of fact not appearing in the record, which, if known to the court at the time the judgment was entered, would have prevented its rendition, (Merkie v. People, post 539, (Nov. term, 1958) ; Ephraim v. People, 13 Ill.2d 456 ; Glenn v. People, 9 Ill.2d 335 ,) that remedy was not available to review questions of fact arising upon the pleadings or to contradict findings which appeared on the face of the judgment.

1958(Collins v. Collins, 14 Ill.2d 178 .) While the common-law writ of error coram nobis was heretofore used to correct errors of fact not appearing in the record, which, if known to the court at the time the judgment was entered, would have prevented its rendition, (Merkie v. People, post 539, (Nov. term, 1958) ; Ephraim v. People, 13 Ill.2d 456 ; Glenn v. People, 9 Ill.2d 335 ,) that remedy was not available to review questions of fact arising upon the pleadings or to contradict findings which appeared on the face of the judgment.

1950(Hall v. People, 402 Ill. 478 ; People v. Dugan, 401 Ill. 442 .) Neither the common-law writ of error coram nobis nor its statutory substitute in Illinois lies, however, to determine a factual question which has been adjudicated, even though decided wrongly, to correct alleged false testimony, or for newly discovered evidence.

1950(Hall v. People, 402 Ill. 478 ; People v. Dugan, 401 Ill. 442 .) Neither the common-law writ of error coram nobis nor its statutory substitute in Illinois lies, however, to determine a factual question which has been adjudicated, even though decided wrongly, to correct alleged false testimony, or for newly discovered evidence.

1950(People v. Gleitsman, 396 Ill. 499 ; People v. Drysch, 311 Ill. 342 .) Again, the alleged incompetence of counsel upon the trial may be reviewed upon writ of error, but the issue is not open to consideration in a proceeding of this kind.

1928Jeude v. Sims, 258 Mo. 26 , 166 S. W. 1048 ; Reed v. Bright, 232 Mo. 399 , 134 S. W. 653 .

1928Jeude v. Sims, 258 Mo. 26 , 166 S. W. 1048 ; Reed v. Bright, 232 Mo. 399 , 134 S. W. 653 .

1928Jeude v. Sims, 258 Mo. 26 , 166 S. W. 1048 ; Reed v. Bright, 232 Mo. 399 , 134 S. W. 653 .

1928Jeude v. Sims, 258 Mo. 26 , 166 S. W. 1048 ; Reed v. Bright, 232 Mo. 399 , 134 S. W. 653 .

1905The conclusion is there stated (p. 247) that the error of fact in order to be availed of under that writ “ must be matter not part of the issues tried by the court, but something aliunde, which if presented to the court at the trial would have absolutely precluded the judgment as rendered and not a fact merely bearing upon the issues adjudged, however conclusive it might be of such issues.” See also Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410,416-7 .,, In the case at bar if the fact that appellant’s active attorney had recently died, and the fact, if fact it was, that the name of the other attorney of