Heintz v. Pratt (54 Ill. App. 616, 1894)

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action brought by plaintiff as administratrix of the estate of Joseph Pratt, deceased, against Louis Eeintz and M. C. Meyer, upon a note made payable to Joseph Pratt, signed by each of the defendants.

In this State a judgment at law is an entirety. Brockman v. McDonald, 16 Ill. 112; Williams v. Chalfant, 82 Ill. 218.

An appeal was taken by Louis Heintz. After the appeal to this court was perfected, the following order was made by the Circuit Court:

It appearing to the court that the, word “ defendants ” instead of the word “ defendant’" has been erroneously used in entering up the judgment in this cause, and it further appearing to the court from the original summons and the return thereof filed in said cause, and from the files of said cause, that the defendant, M. C. Meyer, has never been served with process or appeared in said cause, now on motion of plaintiff, by his attorney, of which said motion the defendant, Louis Heintz, has had due notice, and he being now present by his attorney, it is ordered that the said judgment entered in said cause heretofore, to wit, January 18, 18!)4, be and the same is hereby amended, so that wherever the word