Daab v. Ritter
| Decision Date | 09 March 1938 |
| Docket Number | Ag. No. 20. |
| Citation | 13 N.E.2d 636,294 Ill.App. 203 |
| Parties | DAAB ET AL. v. RITTER. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; Alfred D. Riess, Judge.
Suit by George Daab and others against Louis G. Ritter to recover damages for fraud and deceit. From an alleged judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs appeal, and the defendant moves to dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
James O. Miller, of Belleville, for appellants.
William H. Schuwerk, of Chester, for appellee.
Plaintiffs instituted this suit in the circuit court of Monroe county to recover damages in an action for fraud and deceit. That court sustained defendant's motion in the nature of a demurrer to the amended complaint and the following record entry was made:
Later plaintiffs filed in writing their election to abide by the amended complaint and refused to plead further. No judgment order was entered after plaintiffs filed their election. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to this court from the order above quoted. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that said order is not a final appealable order.
Plaintiffs contend that appeals may be taken from orders and judgments which are not final and relies upon section 74 of the Civil Practice Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1937, c. 110, § 198.
The statutory authority for an appeal and the kind of judgments from which appeals may be taken is to be found in section 77 of said act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1937, c. 110, § 201. The first sentence of that section provides that appeals will lie to the Appellate or Supreme Court in cases where any form of review may be allowed by law, to review the final judgments, orders, or decrees of the courts therein specified. This sentence is in substantially the same words as section 91 of the Practice Act of 1907, Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 110, appendix, § 91, and under that section it has been repeatedly held that appeals could not be taken from any judgments other than those that are final and section 77 of the present act has been given the same effect. Duncan v. National Bank of Decatur, 285 Ill.App. 305, 1 N.E.2d 902.
The entry above quoted is not a judgment at all. It is but a mere memorandum from which a formal judgment might be written. It does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Donnell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 77-1557
...the parties cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists. (Watson v. Hobson (1947),396 Ill. 617, 72 N.E.2d 857; Daab v. Ritter (1938), 294 Ill.App. 203, 13 N.E.2d 636.) Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 110A, par. 304(a)), the circuit court found the May 12, 1977......
- In re Bulliner's Estate
-
Reynolds v. Wangelin
...Statute 1941, Chapt. 110, Par. 201, our jurisdiction is limited to a review of final judgments, orders, and decrees. Daab v. Ritter, 294 Ill.App. 203, 13 N.E.2d 636;Prange v. City of Marion, 297 Ill.App. 353, 17 N.E.2d 616. This provision of the Civil Practice Act is substantially the same ......
-
Anderson v. Samuelson
...cited and quoted with approval from the case of Chicago Portrait v. Chicago Crayon Company, supra. To the same effect is Daab v. Ritter, 294 Ill.App. 203, 13 N.E.2d 636. The judgment order in the case of Duncan v. National Bank of Decatur, 285 Ill.App. 305, 1 N.E.2d 902, 904, is as follows:......