brief of plaintiff error in Illinois

1944This exact question was presented to this court in the case of People v. Bain, 358 Ill. 177 .

1935In the case of People v. Drury, 335 Ill. 539 , our Supreme Court said: ‘ ‘ The conspiracy is complete when the unlawful combination or agreement is made, regardless of any subsequent interruption of the efforts to carry out the object of the conspiracy.” It is the judgment of this court that the object of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment in this case was the obtaining of money from the State of Illinois.

1920(Big Muddy Coal and Iron Co. v. Industrial Board, 279 Ill. 235 ; Wabash Railway Co. v. Industrial Com. 286 id. 194; Jakub v. Industrial Com. 288 id. 87; Spring Valley Coal Co. v. Industrial Com. 289 id. 315.) While much emphasis was laid on this point in the presentation of evidence, the point seems to have been abandoned in the brief and we will not consider it further. ■ The point urged in the brief of plaintiff in error for a reversal of this judgment is, that defendant in error was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of his injury and that recovery must be had, if at all, under the

1919(Gillespie v. Rout, 40 Ill. 58 .) Rule 15 requires that the brief of plaintiff in error shall contain the points made and authorities relied upon in support of them, and rule 27 provides that if such a brief is not filed by the plaintiff in error within the time prescribed the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

1918The other objection argued in the brief of plaintiff in error is that no claim for compensation was made by the employee within six months after the accident, and Haiselden v. Industrial Board, 275 Ill. 114 , Bushnell v. Industrial Board, 276 id. 262 , and Conway Co. v. Industrial Board, 282 id. 313, holding that unless the claim for compensation is made within six months after the accident it will be barred, are relied on.

1918The other objection argued in the brief of plaintiff in error is that no claim for compensation was made by the employee within six months after the accident, and Haiselden v. Industrial Board, 275 Ill. 114 , Bushnell v. Industrial Board, 276 id. 262 , and Conway Co. v. Industrial Board, 282 id. 313, holding that unless the claim for compensation is made within six months after the accident it will be barred, are relied on.

1912Other objections to the constitutionality of the act have been decided adversely to the contentions of plaintiff in error in People v. Elerding, 254 Ill. 579 , since the brief of plaintiff in error was filed, and are now withdrawn.

1905Co. v. Hart, 209 Ill. 414 , cited in the brief of plaintiff in error, the corporation was held liable for injuries resulting from the negligence of the contractor on the ground that the work being done at the time was an exercise of the corporation’s charter powers.

1896Cook v. Moulton, 59 Ill.