Dawson v. Eustace
| Decision Date | 16 January 1894 |
| Citation | 148 Ill. 346,36 N.E. 87 |
| Parties | DAWSON v. EUSTACE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from probate court, Cook county; Christian C. Kohlsaat, Judge.
Petition of Richard Eustace, administrator of William Boyle, deceased, for leave to sell the decedent's land for the payment of his debts. There was an order of sale, from which Katherine Dawson, one of the heirs, appeals. Dismissed.
Milton I. Beck, for appellant.
D. W. Graves, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the probate court of Cook county authorizing appellee, as administrator, to sell real estate to pay debts. The first question raised on the record is one of jurisdiction, appellee insisting that an appeal does not lie to this court. It is not denied that section 12 of the statute entitled ‘Probate Courts' authorizes such an appeal, but it is insisted that the section is in contravention of section 29, art. 6, of the constitution, and therefore void. The section of the constitution provides that ‘all laws relating to courts shall be general, and of uniform application; and the organization, jurisdiction, powers, proceedings, and practice of all courts, of the same calss, or grade, so far as regulated, and the force and effect of the process, judgment, and decrees of courts, shall be uniform.’ Whether or not section 12 of the statute supra is violative of this constitutional provision depends upon its construction in connection with the act entitled ‘County Courts,’ which provides for appeals from like decrees. In other words, are the two statutes wanting in uniformity, within the meaning of the foregoing language of the constitution? Turning to the latter statute, we find that, by section 5, county courts are given jurisdiction in all matters of probate, ‘and in proceedings by executors, amdinistrators, guardians, and conservators for the sale of real estate for the purposes authorized by law.’ Section 5 of the act establishing probate courts confers like jurisdiction upon that court. The only sections of the county court act allowing appeals are 122 and 123, and, read together, they provide that ‘appeals may be taken from the final orders, judgments, and decrees of the county courts to the circuit courts of their respective counties, in all matters except * * * in proceedings for the confirmation of special assessments, in proceedings for the sale of lands for taxes, and special assessments, and in all common law and attachment cases, and cases of forcible detainer,and forcible entry and detainer.’ In the excepted cases, appeals can be taken directly to this or the appellate court. Upon all appeals to the circuit court, the trial must be de novo. It is clear, therefore, from the two sections, that appeals from decrees of county courts ordering the sale of real estate by administrators to pay debts can only be taken...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rust v. Stewart
... ... (Cullen v. Glendora Water ... Co., 113 Cal. 503, 39 P. 769, 45 P. 822, 1047; City ... v. Hevren, 126 Cal. 226, 58 P. 530; Dawson v ... Eustace, 148 Ill. 346, 36 N.E. 87; Chicago R. Co. v ... Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418, 10 S.Ct. 462, 702.) We claim, ... also, that, under our ... ...
- Ames v. Ames
- Chicago v. City of Ottawa
-
McClain v. Williams
...The constitutionality of a similar law to that of 1897 was recently before the supreme court of Illinois in the case of Dawson v. Eustice, 148 Ill. 346, 36 N.E. 87. It would appear from the decision that county courts in that state generally, as here, have jurisdiction of estate matters. wi......