Blake v. Blake
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Citation | 80 Ill. 523,1875 WL 8789 |
| Parties | BARNUM BLAKEv.CHRISTINE BLAKE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN G. ROGERS, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. HERVEY, ANTHONY & GALT, for the appellant.
Mr. S. K. DOW, for the appellee.
A motion was made in this court to dismiss the appeal in this case on the ground the decree appealed from is interlocutory, and not final. The appeal taken is from a decree of the circuit court awarding attorney's fees, and money to defray the expenses attending the defense of an appeal which defendant had prayed from an order of the circuit court committing him to prison as for contempt for non-compliance with a previous decree for alimony and solicitor's fees in complainant's suit against defendant for divorce.
The question raised is one that has never been passed upon by this court, but, upon first impression, we are of opinion the appeal will lie. It is a money decree, is for a specific sum, and is payable absolutely. No execution has been as yet awarded, but the court has the undoubted authority to award an execution, or if payment was willfully and contumaciously refused, the decree might be enforced by attachment, as for contempt, or payment might be coerced by sequestration of real or personal estate.
By one mode or the other, the decree could be enforced, and if defendant has property, it could, in some way consistently with the practice in courts of chancery, be subjected to its payment. Such a decree does not seem to us to be merely interlocutory. It is more in the nature of a final decree, and if no appeal lies, this case affords an instance of a money decree against a party from which no relief can be had, no matter how unjust or oppressive. This ought not to be. It is no answer to this position, to say defendant can have this decree against him reviewed on appeal or error, after final decree in the original cause. Of what avail would that privilege be to him then? The litigation might be protracted, and years elapse before any final decision could be reached. In the meantime, he has been imprisoned for disobedience to the decree, or his property under process of law been subjected to the payment of the sum decreed.
Nor does the fact an appeal is allowed impose any hardship not incident to other money decrees from which appeals may be prosecuted. On the theory alimony is for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hiss v. Hiss.
...67 Cal. 185, 195, 7 P. 456, 635, 8 P. 709; Daniels v. Daniels, 9 Colo. 133, 139, 10 P. 657; Lesh v. Lesh, 21 App.D.C. 475, 484; Blake v. Blake, 80 Ill. 523, 525; Sellers v. Sellers, 141 Ind. 305, 306, 40 N.E. 699; Lochnane v. Lochnane, 78 Ky. 467, 468; State ex rel. Gercke v. Seddon, 93 Mo.......
-
Mccormick v. West Chicago Park Com'rs.
...should take possession of the land. The order deprived them of this right, and directed the money to be paid elsewhere. Blake v. Blake, 80 Ill. 523. Flaherty did not claim more than $2,221.29, yet the order directs the whole fund, both that which was in dispute, and that which was admitted ......
-
McCormick v. West Chicago Park Com'rs
...should take possession of the land. The order deprived them of this right, and directed the money to be paid elsewhere. Blake v. Blake, 80 Ill. 523. Flaherty did not claim more than $2,221.29, yet the order directs the whole fund, both that which was in dispute, and that which was admitted ......
-
In re Marriage of Knoerr
...that where no punishment has been imposed an order adjudicating one to be in contempt is not final and is not reviewable"); Blake v. Blake, 80 Ill. 523, 524-25 (1875) (where the trial court imposed fines and imprisonment on the defendant, supreme court stated that such an order was a final ......