Rowley v. Hughes

Decided April 15, 1866

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1866-04-15

Counsel for the plaintiff in error suggested to the court that the clerk in the court helow in transcribing the record and proceedings therein, had omitted to copy the seal of the officer who took the acknowledgment of a deed which appears in the transcript, and asked leave to withdraw the transcript with a view to its amendment in that regard.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1916

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam: :

¶1It is not according to the practice of the court to permit the transcript of the record to be withdrawn for the purpose indicated. The clerk below can copy the certificate of acknowledgment, and the deed itself, if that should appear necessary to show its identity with that now in the record, and attach the seal which has been omitted, and certify it accordingly.

¶2Counsel then inquired if it would be necessary for a writ of certiorari to issue for the purpose of bringing up the additional transcript.

¶3Per Curlam: : No writ of certiorari is necessary; the party interested in making the amendment can file it as an additional or amended record, and it will be considered in connection with the original transcript.