Dunbar v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
Citation | 212 Ill. 637,72 N.E. 904 |
Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
Decision Date | 13 December 1904 |
Parties | DUNBAR et al. v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Cook County.
Controversy between Francis W. Dunbar and others and the American Telephone & Telegraph Company and others. Decree adverse to Dunbar and others, and they bring error. Dismissed.Henry S. Robbins, Pliny B. Smith, and John S. Miller, for plaintiffs in error.
A. N. Waterman, Holt, Wheeler & Sidley, and Tenney, Coffeen & Harding, for defendants in error.
This is a motion made by the defendants in error to dismiss the writ. The plaintiffs in error seek to have reviewed a decree of the circuit court of Cook county. At the time that decree was entered, plaintiffs in error prayed for and obtained an appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District. They filed a bond, and are engaged in prosecuting that appeal. This motion was made on the ground that the cause cannot properly be pending in this court and in the Appellate Court at the same time.
It is said, in response to that, that counsel for plaintiffs in error are in doubt as to which of the courts has appellate jurisdiction of this case. We deem that an insufficient answer. They prosecuted an appeal to the Appellate Court, and so long as that is pending they will not be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly the writ will be dismissed.
Writ dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People ex rel. Wayman v. Zimmer
...court reviewed as a part of the record when his case should be brought to this court, if at all, by writ of error; and said (212 Ill. 588,72 N. E. 904): ‘It is not the intent or purpose of the law that mere errors committed or arising out of matters wherein a court is exercising a discretio......
-
Lobell v. Stock Oil Company
...... appeal should be dismissied. (American &c. Co. v. Perrine, (Fla.) 24 So. 484; DaCosta v. Dibble,. (Fla.) 33 So. ...White, (Cal.). 66 P. 80; Rowland v. Fite, (Ga.) 34 S.E. 212;. Dunbar v. T. & T. Co., (Ill.) 72 N.E. 904;. Burdett v. Dale, (Mo.) 69 S.W. 480; ......