Rowley v. Hughes
Illinois Supreme Court
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.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam: :
It is not according to the practice of the court to permit the transcript of the record to be withdrawn for the purpose indicated.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.
Counsel then inquired if it would be necessary for a writ of certiorari to issue for the purpose of bringing up the additional transcript.
Per Curlam: : No writ of certiorari is necessary; the party interested in making…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Vahle v. BrackenseikIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Brooks v. MartinIllinois Supreme Court · 1872
- Rubendall v. TarboxAppellate Court of Illinois · 1916
- Stebbins v. AnthonySupreme Court of Colorado · 1880