second writ error in Illinois

1958There are opinions of this court that appear to lend support to this contention. ( People v. Superior Court of Cook County, 234 Ill. 186 ; People v. Thompson, 392 Ill. 589 .) Those decisions, however, are not applicable here.

1954(People v. Thompson, 392 Ill. 589 ; People v. Bernovich, 403 Ill. 480 .) In the cited cases, and other decisions discussed therein, the merits of assigned errors were considered upon the first application, whereas, in the instant case, the court was precluded from passing upon or even learning the errors relied upon by defendant’s unexplained failure, after being granted extensions of time totalling a year, to file a brief or abstract.

1922(Dilworth v. Carts, 139 Ill. 508 .) No alleged errors will be considered except those claimed to have arisen since the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded.” When the former appeal was taken, Walters knew of the supposed errors in the decree at the January term, 1919, on March 22, 1919.

1912(Dilworth v. Curts, 139 Ill. 508 .) No alleged er-rots will be considered except those claimed to have arisen since the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded.

1958There are opinions of this court that appear to lend support to this contention. ( People v. Superior Court of Cook County, 234 Ill. 186 ; People v. Thompson, 392 Ill. 589 .) Those decisions, however, are not applicable here.

1954(People v. Thompson, 392 Ill. 589 ; People v. Bernovich, 403 Ill. 480 .) In the cited cases, and other decisions discussed therein, the merits of assigned errors were considered upon the first application, whereas, in the instant case, the court was precluded from passing upon or even learning the errors relied upon by defendant’s unexplained failure, after being granted extensions of time totalling a year, to file a brief or abstract.

1922Dist. v. Hawley, supra, the court said: “A party cannot on a second writ of error take advantage of any error which existed and might have been assigned on the former record.

1905In Thorp v. Thorp, 40 Ill. 113 , it was held that where a writ of error is sued out by several, a part may dismiss the writ as to themselves and leave the remaining plaintiffs in error to prosecute their suit if they desire.

1905Mr. Justice Hand delivered the opinion of the court: The suing out of a writ of error is deemed the beginning of a new suit, and in Granat v. Kruse, 213 Ill. 328 , it was said (p. 331) : “A plaintiff in error has the same right to dismiss a writ sued out in his name that he has to dismiss a suit begun by him in a court of original jurisdiction.” It is urged, however, by the appellant that two hundred and twenty-six of the plaintiffs in error did not join in the motion to dismiss the writ of error, and it is said the apparent object of the eighteen plaintiffs in error in dismissing the writ was

1901They sued out a second writ of error from this court, and the latter judgment of conviction was reversed on the ground that the jury before which they were tried had been improperly empaneled, (Healy v. People, 177 Ill. 306 ,) and the case again remanded for another trial.

1881None of the questions which were before the court on the first writ of error can be re-lieard or re-examined upon the second.” So in Corning v. Troy Iron and Nail Factory, 15 How. 451 , the court, in discussing the same question, say: ‘‘ Whatever was formerly before the court, and was disposed of by its decree, is considered as finally disposed of.” For other cases involving the same principle, see Roberts v Cooper, 20 How. 467 ; Himely v. Hose, 5 Cranch, 313 ; The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat. 431 ; Browder v. McArthur, 7 Id. 58; Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Id. 304; Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart

1881None of the questions which were before the court on the first writ of error can be re-lieard or re-examined upon the second.” So in Corning v. Troy Iron and Nail Factory, 15 How. 451 , the court, in discussing the same question, say: ‘‘ Whatever was formerly before the court, and was disposed of by its decree, is considered as finally disposed of.” For other cases involving the same principle, see Roberts v Cooper, 20 How. 467 ; Himely v. Hose, 5 Cranch, 313 ; The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat. 431 ; Browder v. McArthur, 7 Id. 58; Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Id. 304; Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart

1881None of the questions which were before the court on the first writ of error can be re-lieard or re-examined upon the second.” So in Corning v. Troy Iron and Nail Factory, 15 How. 451 , the court, in discussing the same question, say: ‘‘ Whatever was formerly before the court, and was disposed of by its decree, is considered as finally disposed of.” For other cases involving the same principle, see Roberts v Cooper, 20 How. 467 ; Himely v. Hose, 5 Cranch, 313 ; The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat. 431 ; Browder v. McArthur, 7 Id. 58; Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Id. 304; Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart

1881None of the questions which were before the court on the first writ of error can be re-lieard or re-examined upon the second.” So in Corning v. Troy Iron and Nail Factory, 15 How. 451 , the court, in discussing the same question, say: ‘‘ Whatever was formerly before the court, and was disposed of by its decree, is considered as finally disposed of.” For other cases involving the same principle, see Roberts v Cooper, 20 How. 467 ; Himely v. Hose, 5 Cranch, 313 ; The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat. 431 ; Browder v. McArthur, 7 Id. 58; Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Id. 304; Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart

1881None of the questions which were before the court on the first writ of error can be re-lieard or re-examined upon the second.” So in Corning v. Troy Iron and Nail Factory, 15 How. 451 , the court, in discussing the same question, say: ‘‘ Whatever was formerly before the court, and was disposed of by its decree, is considered as finally disposed of.” For other cases involving the same principle, see Roberts v Cooper, 20 How. 467 ; Himely v. Hose, 5 Cranch, 313 ; The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat. 431 ; Browder v. McArthur, 7 Id. 58; Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Id. 304; Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart

1881In Sizer v. Many, 16 How. 98 , the court say: “ It has been settled by the decisions of this court, that after a case has been brought here and decided, and a mandate issued to the court below, if a second writ of error is sued out, it brings up for revision nothing but the proceedings subsequent to the mandate.

1881None of the questions which were before the court on the first writ of error can be re-lieard or re-examined upon the second.” So in Corning v. Troy Iron and Nail Factory, 15 How. 451 , the court, in discussing the same question, say: ‘‘ Whatever was formerly before the court, and was disposed of by its decree, is considered as finally disposed of.” For other cases involving the same principle, see Roberts v Cooper, 20 How. 467 ; Himely v. Hose, 5 Cranch, 313 ; The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat. 431 ; Browder v. McArthur, 7 Id. 58; Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Id. 304; Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart

1881None of the questions which were before the court on the first writ of error can be re-lieard or re-examined upon the second.” So in Corning v. Troy Iron and Nail Factory, 15 How. 451 , the court, in discussing the same question, say: ‘‘ Whatever was formerly before the court, and was disposed of by its decree, is considered as finally disposed of.” For other cases involving the same principle, see Roberts v Cooper, 20 How. 467 ; Himely v. Hose, 5 Cranch, 313 ; The Santa Maria, 10 Wheat. 431 ; Browder v. McArthur, 7 Id. 58; Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Id. 304; Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart