Chicago Portrait Co. v. Chicago Crayon Co.
| Decision Date | 24 October 1905 |
| Citation | 217 Ill. 200,75 N.E. 473 |
| Parties | CHICAGO PORTRAIT CO. v. CHICAGO CRAYON CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.
Action by the Chicago Portrait Company against the Chicago Crayon Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Court, affirming a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Duncombe & Evans, for appellant.
A. D. Gash, for appellee.
Appellant was plaintiff and appellee was defendant in this suit in the circuit court of Cook county. That court sustained the general demurrer of the defendant to the declaration, and the plaintiff elected to stand by the declaration. The recital of said facts in the record is followed by this judgment: ‘Therefore it is considered by the court that the defendant do have and recover of and from the plaintiff its costs and charges in this behalf expended and have execution therefor.’ There was no disposition of the rights of the parties or of the suit; but plaintiff prayed an appeal from said judgment to the Appellate Court for the First District, and assigned for error that the court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the suit. Neither party raised any question as to the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court, but submitted the cause on the merits. The Appellate Court, in the opinion filed, called attention to the fact that the judgment was not final, or such that an appeal could be taken from it, but, treating it as final, disposed of the case on the merits and affirmed the judgment. Appellant prosecuted its further appeal to this court, and assigns for error that the Appellate Court took jurisdiction of the appeal and decided the case on its merits, instead of dismissing the appeal.
In the argument for appellant the only error relied upon is that the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction of the appeal, for the reason that the judgment was not final. The answer of appellee to that argument is that appellant is estopped, by taking the appeal and submitting the cause upon the merits, from now saying that the Appellate Court ought to have dismissed its appeal. The judgment was not final, and the statute only authorizes appeals from final judgments. The circuit court merely sustained a demurrer to the declaration, and neither adjudgedthat the plaintiff take nothing by the writ, nor that the defendant go hence without day, and the judgment contained no words of equivalent meaning. There was no trial of any issue resulting in a finding for the defendant, as there was no issue to be tried, and there was nothing in the nature of a determination of the rights of the parties. Such a judgment is not final. Wenom v. Fossick, 213 Ill. 70, 72 N. E. 732; 11 Ency. of Pl. & Pr. 925. The only question, therefore, is whether appellant is estopped, by taking the appeal,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geier v. Hamer Enterprises, Inc.
...this case where we raised the issue of appellate jurisdiction sua sponte, as is our responsibility. (See Chicago Portrait Co. v. Chicago Crayon Co. (1905), 217 Ill. 200, 75 N.E. 473; Geocaris v. Bangs (1968), 91 Ill.App.2d 81, 234 N.E.2d 17.) We held that because of their contingent nature,......
-
Brauer Mach. & Supply Co. ex rel. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Parkhill Truck Co.
...order of the circuit court if, in fact, the order appealed from was not one from which an appeal would lie. Chicago Portrait Co. v. Chicago Crayon Co., 217 Ill. 200, 75 N.E. 473. The question of whether the order of the circuit court was one from which an appeal could be taken is a novel on......
-
Central Wisconsin Motor Transport Co. v. Levin
... ... Peter V. Fazio, Edward Atlas, Harry Fins, Chicago, for appellant ... [66 Ill.App.2d 385] Althimer, Gray, ... bring the insufficiency to the attention of the court.' Chicago Portrait Co. v. Chicago Crayon Co., 217 Ill. 200, 75 N.E. 473 (1905); Brauer ... ...
-
Rodriguez v. Chicago Transit Authority
...'the defendant * * * go hence without day' are held to be the language of final judgment for a defendant. Chicago Portrait Co. v. Chicago Crayon Co., 217 Ill. 200, 75 N.E. 473; Barrow v. Robinson, 28 Ill.App.2d 358, 171 N.E.2d 663. The plaintiff then appealed from this judgment. The issue t......