Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Watts v. Medusa Portland Cement Co.

MARCH 26, 1971.

MARVIN R. WATTS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

MEDUSA PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Lee County; the Hon. JAMES E. BALES, Judge, presiding.

MR. JUSTICE SEIDENFELD DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Rehearing denied May 6, 1971.

Marvin R. Watts filed suit on June 25th, 1958, to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of an accident alleged to have occurred on June 26th, 1956. His complaint was dismissed by judgment order dated May 7th, 1964 following a general call of the docket which had been held on April 14th, 1964. On plaintiff's ex parte motion filed on December 28th, 1967, an order reinstating the case was entered on March 27th, 1968 with no notice to the defendants. On February 13th, 1970 defendants moved to vacate the order of reinstatement. After a hearing on the motion and plaintiff's objections thereto, the court, on February 24th, 1970, vacated the order of reinstatement as having been entered without jurisdiction and confirmed the previous dismissal order. The plaintiff then moved to vacate this order and appeals from the denial of his motion.

Watts argues that the court properly reinstated the case but improperly vacated the order of reinstatement. We do not agree.

The trial court properly dismissed the case for want of prosecution on May 7th, 1964. The order recited that it was entered pursuant to a certain Rule 6 of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in that no action described in the rule had been taken for two years preceding the call of the docket on April 14th, 1964. *fn1

Plaintiff's motion to reinstate, which was filed on December 28th, 1967, alleged as a basis:

"3. That the clerk had not printed in the Bar docket a list of the cases subject to the rule, nor was any list furnished to him or his attorney.

4. That the clerk did not give any notice to him or his attorney of the dismissal of the case for want of prosecution as required by Section 50.1 of the Civil Practice Act:

5. That the rule provides that for good cause shown, the case may be reinstated.

6. That he has a meritorious cause of action."

The supporting affidavit of plaintiff's attorney stated:

"3. That he has made various attempts in good faith to have the pending motions heard, that he has discussed the same with opposing counsel, and that he has endeavored to get them (to) appear but they have not agreed to do so.

4. That he first learned that the case had been dismissed for want of prosecution while he was in Dixon, Illinois, on December 1, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.