Devine v. L. Fish Furniture Co.

• Decision Date: 19 April 1913
• Parties: DEVINE v. L. FISH FURNITURE CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

258 Ill. 389

101 N.E. 539

DEVINE

v.L. FISH FURNITURE CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 19, 1913.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Thomas G. Windes, Judge.

Action by John F. Devine, administrator of Banford T. Sinclair, deceased, against the L. Fish Furniture Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Cause transferred to Appellate Court.

Miller, Gorham & Wales, of Chicago, for appellant.

James L. Bynum and Charles C. Spencer, both of Chicago (Bernhardt Frank, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

COOKE, J.

Appellee, John F. Devine, as administrator of the estate of Banford T. Sinclair, deceased, recovered a judgment in the circuit court of Cook county against the appellant, the L. Fish Furniture Company, a corporation, for $8,500. The declaration, when the cause was submitted to the jury, consisted of two counts, both of which alleged as negligence on the part of appellant the violation of section 14 of an act entitled ‘An act to provide for the health, safety and comfort of employés in factories, mercantile establishments, mills and workshops in this state, and to provide for the enforcement thereof,’ approved June 4, 1909, in force January 1, 1910. Laws of 1909, p. 202. To this declaration a plea of the general issue was interposed. An appeal has been taken directly to this court, upon the ground that the act of June 4, 1909, on which the declaration was based is unconstitutional, for the reason that the Legislature, in passing that act, did not follow the provisions of the Constitution with reference to the printing of bills, and amendments thereto, before taking the vote on final passage, and also that the act was changed after its passage by the Senate, at some time unknown, by striking out an emergency clause and inserting in lieu thereof a clause postponing its operation until January 1, 1910, and was never thereafter returned bo the Senate and passed by the Senate as changed.

During the progress of the trial the constitutionality of the amendment of June 16, 1909 (Laws 1909, p. 234), to another act entitled ‘An act relating to fire escapes,’ approved and in force April 21, 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 220), was questioned upon the ground that the bill had not been read a second time in the State. In support of this proposition counsel for appellant introduced in evidence the Senate Journal for 1909, and pointed out to the court the particular portions thereof that recited the steps taken in the passage of said amendment to the Fire Escape Act. In admitting the Senate Journal in evidence the court expressly limited its admission to the purpose for which it was then offered-that is, to the purpose of showing whether or not the said amendment of June 16, 1909, to the Fire Escape Act had been read a second time in the Senate. At no time during the trial was the validity of the act upon which the action was based, that of June 4, 1909, challenged. Upon the motion for a new trial it was urged for the first time that the said act of June 4, 1909, was...