Steele v. Grand Trunk Junction Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1888
• Citation: 17 N.E. 483,125 Ill. 385
• Parties: STEELE v. GRAND TRUNK JUNCTION RY. CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

125 Ill. 385

17 N.E. 483

STEELE

v.GRAND TRUNK JUNCTION RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 16, 1888.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

H. F. Vallette, for appellant.

F. H. Culver, for appellee.

SCOTT, J.

This was an action of forcible detainer, brought before a justice of the peace by the Grand Trunk Junction Railway Company against Henry T. Steele, to recover possession of premises definitely described in the written complaint. It is alleged in the complaint, the time for which the premises had been let to defendant had expired, and that plaintiff was then entitled to possession. On the trial before the justice of the peace, defendant was found guilty of withholding the premises from plaintiff, and the usual formal judgment was rendered. That judgment was affirmed in the superior court of Cook county, and the judgment of the superior court was affirmed in the appellate court of the First district, and defendant brings the case to this court on appeal. After the papers in the appeal suit were sent up to the superior court, another paper, purporting to be a plea in abatement, was sent up by the justice of the peace, and was marked, ‘Filed,’ by the clerk of the superior court, by the order of that court. It appears to have been marked, ‘Filed,’ by the justice of the peace on the 19th day of May, 1884. That is the day on which the cause was called for trial in the justice's court. It does not appear from anything contained in the transcript filed in the superior court that the justice took any notice of the paper said to be a plea in abatement, or that his attention was called to it by either party to the suit. It is recited, ‘One witness was sworn and examined, and docket introduced in evidence;’ and the cause was then continued to the day on which the final decision was rendered. On the trial in the superior court, that court found ‘the issues for plaintiff on the plea in abatement,’ and, without hearing any evidence whatever on the merits of the case, rendered judgment that plaintiff have restitution from defendant of the premises described in the complaint. It is this decision of the superior court that was affirmed in the appellate court, as before stated.

Before passing to consider the real ground of objection to the present judgment, it will be necessary to dispose of some preliminary questions raised by plaintiff, who is the appellee in this court. First. It is said this court has no jurisdiction to hear defendant's appeal, because it is said the ‘sum or value in controversy’ does not exceed $1,000, and there is no sufficient certificate from the judges of the appellate court to give this court jurisdiction. The record does contain a certificate of importance, under section 8 of the appellate court act, made by a majority of the judges of the appellate court in which the cause was heard. It is said that this certificate is insufficient, for the reason it does not state or certify the ‘grounds of granting said appeal;’ that is, it should have specifically pointed out in the certificate the questions of law which they considered of sufficient importance to be passed upon by this court. So much fullness in the making of the certificate of importance has not heretofore been required. It has always been held, that it is sufficient if it be stated, as is done in the certificate in this case, that the cause decided ‘involves questions of law of such importance, either on account of principal or collateral interests, as that it should be passed upon by the supreme court.’ There is no reason for departing from the practice that has been so long established in this respect. Second. It is said there is no bill of exceptions in the record. There is in the transcript of the record in the superior court what purports to be a bill of exceptions, in which the trial judge states the facts in regard to signing it, and ‘leaving the question that it was signed in time to the appellate court.’ On the hearing of the cause in the appellate court, plaintiff, who was defendant in error in that court, ‘moved the court to strike from the record the paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions.’ That motion the court took under advisement, and on a subsequent day of the same term the motion was denied by the court. As plaintiff has assigned no cross-errors on the record as respects the decision of the appellate court adverse to his motion, it will be understood he acquiesced in that decision. Had he wished to have that question further considered in this court, is is indispensable he should assign it for error according to the uniform practice in this court. Omitting to do so, the decision of the appellate court denying the motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the files, whether correct or not, must stand.

The errors assigned by defendant, who is the appellant in this court, will require but a brief discussion. It is said the judgment is erroneous for many reasons, but the substance of all of them is, the court erred in rendering judgment against defendant without any proofs offered by plaintiff in support of his action. The only evidence offered in the trial court was that introduced by defendant himself to show a former suit between the same parties, for the same cause of action, that was then pending and undetermined in a court of competent jurisdiction. The omission on the part of plaintiff to introduce any evidence whatever to sustain his action is sought to be justified on the ground the trial was had on what is alleged to be a plea in abatement filed by defendant. It seems the court found the issues on that plea for plaintiff, and thereupon, without hearing any...