Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Bowley v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 302 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1929-06-26 No. 1142
Disposition: (No. 1142-Claim dismissed.)
Cite as: Bowley v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 302 (1929)

A. H. BOWLEY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

The claimant failed to appear or respond to the respondent's motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, so the court dismissed the case.

Claim type: Other

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. DISMISSAL-when case will be dismissed upon motion the Attorney General. Where upon motion of the Attorney General to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution and it appearing that proper notice has been given and no appearance or response to such notice appears upon the record. Held: Claimant is in default and case dismissed for want of prosecution.

DISMISSAL-when case will be dismissed upon motion the Attorney General. Where upon motion of the Attorney General to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution and it appearing that proper notice has been given and no appearance or response to such notice appears upon the record. Held: Claimant is in default and case dismissed for want of prosecution. JAMES D. BRYDEN, for claimant. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; ROY D. JOHNSON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE CLARDY delivered the opinion of the court:

Now on this 26th day of June, A. D. 1929, being the day heretofore fixed for the hearing of said motion, comes the State of Illinois, respondent, by its attorneys, Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General of said State, and Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General of said State; And it appearing unto the court that the State of Illinois, the respondent, having heretofore filed its motion to show cause why said case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution; And it further appearing that notice of said motion has been given to claimant in said above entitled case; And it further appearing that no appearance or response appears upon the record from the said claimant, the court is of the opinion that said claimant is in default.

Therefore, it is the order of the court that the said above entitled case is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.

Official volume 6 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1927–June 30, 1931)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.