First Nat. Bank of Jonesbord v. Rd. Dist. No. 8

Decision Date17 January 1945
Docket NumberNo. 28192.,28192.
Citation389 Ill. 156,58 N.E.2d 884
PartiesFIRST NAT. BANK OF JONESBORD et al. v. ROAD DIST. NO. 8.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Appellate Court, Fourth District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County; D. F. Rumsey, Judge.

Action by First National Bank of Jones boro against Road District No. 8, Union County, and others, to restrain defendants named from proceeding with the prosecution of the suit at law for the recovery of certain moneys which were on deposit in plaintiff's bank in special account, and for a decree determining the ownership of the fund and directing disbursement. From a decree permanently enjoining the suit at law and apportioning the fund among certain districts, an appeal was perfected to the Supreme Court, which transferred the cause to the Appellate Court for the Fourth District, 382 Ill. 508, 48 N.E.2d 410. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as moot, 322 Ill.App. 293, 54 N.E.2d 847, upon being advised that no order was entered that the appeal should operate as a supersedeas and that distribution of the funds involved had been made and directed by the decree. To review the judgment of the Appellate Court, leave to appeal was granted.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Paul D. Reese, of Jonesboro, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

THOMPSON, Justice.

This is an appeal on leave granted to review a judgment of the Appellate Court for the Fourth District. The suit was brought by appellee The First National Bank of Jonesboro to restrain appellant, Road District No. 8, from proceeding with the prosecution of a suit at law for the recovery of certain moneys in the total sum of $3521.48, which were on deposit in said bank in a special account designated as Road District No. 8 drainage fund.’ Said bank also prayed for a decree determining the ownership of said fund and directing disbursement. All of the various claimants to the fund were made parties defendant.

The facts out of which the controversy arose are set forth in the second amended complaint and admitted by all the parties to the suit. The appellant, Road District No. 8, in the years 1915 and 1916 levied against the taxable property in the district the respective sums of $2500 and $1500 for ‘ditching to drain roads.’ The proceeds arising from the collection of these taxes, amounting to $2124.19, were segregated from the other funds of the district and by it, on June 9, 1920, deposited in the special account above mentioned, which, with the accumulation of interest thereon, now amounts to said total sum of $3521.48. Prior to the levy and collection of said taxes, the appellee drainage districts and the Miller Pond Drainage District had levied against said Road District No. 8 special assessments for benefits to the roads of said district by the drainage improvements constructed by said drainage districts. The drainage assessment of the Miller Pond district has been entirely paid, but there still remains an unpaid balance upon each of said assessments levied by the other drainage districts. Subsequent to the levy and collection by Road District No. 8, of the taxes deposited in said special account, there have been created by the county board of Union county appellees Road District No. 10 and Road District No. 11, each of which includes within its boundaries territory formerly constituting a part of Road District No. 8.

On October 24, 1941, a final decree was entered permanently enjoining the suit at law, apportioning the fund among appellees The Clear Creek Drainage & Levee District of Union and Alexander counties, The Preston Levee & Drainage District of Union county and Road Districts Nos. 10 and 11, and ordering the bank to make distribution accordingly. Road District No. 8 perfected an appeal to this court, but there being no question involved which would give this court jurisdiction on direct appeal, the cause was transferred to the Appellate Court for the Fourth District. First National Bank of Jonesboro v. Road District No. 8, 382 Ill. 508, 48 N.E.2d 410.

No order that the appeal in this case should operate as a supersedeas was entered by either the trial or reviewing court, and the bank made distribution of the funds involved, as directed by the decree. The bank's report of distribution was filed with the circuit court and said court, on June 5, 1942, entered a decree approving the same and discharging said bank from any and all further liability in connection with the funds so distributed. These facts were brought to the attention of the Appellate Court when the appeal came on for hearing; and thereupon that court held that inasmuch as supersedeas had not been granted and distribution of the funds had been made as directed by the decree, the controversy involved in the appeal as to the ownership of the funds distributed had become moot, and dismissed the appeal.

A court of review will dismiss an appeal when it has notice of facts which show that only moot questions or abstract propositions are involved. When a case presents or involves no actual controversy, interests or rights of the parties, or when the issues have ceased to exist, or when only abstract questions are involved on which the court can grant no effectual relief to either party, or when, pending the disposition of a case in a court of review, an event occurs which renders any judgment which might be entered by the reviewing court useless and unavailing to either party, the appeal or writ of error will be dismissed. Chicago City Bank & Trust Co. v. Board of Education, 386 Ill. 508, 54 N.E.2d 498. The general correctness of these propositions must be conceded. Their application to the particular case here presented is, alone, to be considered.

It is the contention of appellant that the Appellate Court has misapprehended the purpose, scope and effect of a supersedeas, and that the issues raised by an appeal from a decree for the payment of money do not become moot by the subsequent execution of the decree in the absence of a supersedeas. A supersedeas suspends that efficacy of a judgment. Its object and purpose are to stay future proceedings. It restrains the appellee or defendant in error from taking affirmative action to enforce his judgment or decree and operates as notice that all proceedings on the judgment are to be stayed until the determination of the cause by the reviewing court. People ex rel. Finn v. David, 328 Ill. 230, 159 N.E. 263;Blackerby v. People ex rel. Metz, 10 Ill. 266,5 Gilman 266. Prior to the enactment of the Civil Practice Act, every appeal operated in and of itself as a supersedeas or stay of all proceedings to enforce the execution of the judgment or decree...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • In re Tekela
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • August 29, 2002
    ...ordinarily be subject to redetermination upon reversal by the reviewing court. For example, in First National Bank of Jonesboro v. Road District No. 8, 389 Ill. 156, 161-62, 58 N.E.2d 884 (1945), we held "[a] party to a suit is presumed to know of all the errors in the record, and such part......
  • Williamsburg Village Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Lauder Associates
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 20, 1990
    ...reversal is to abrogate the decree and leave the cause as it stood prior to the entry of the decree (First National Bank v. Road District No. 8 (1945), 389 Ill. 156, 161-62, 58 N.E.2d 884), restoring the parties to their original positions. (Loy v. Booth (1974), 16 Ill.App.3d 1077, 307 N.E.......
  • Buzz Barton & Associates, Inc. v. Giannone
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • October 3, 1985
    ... ... ] defendant's motion to dismiss was heard first and denied. The court then proceeded to a ... 130, 134, 63 N.E.2d 858; First National Bank v. Road District No. 8 (1945), 389 Ill. 156, 162, ... ...
  • Briarcliffe West Townhouse Owners Ass'n v. Wiseman Const. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 19, 1983
    ...appealing from the judgment. Pinkstaff v. Penn. Railroad Co. (1964), 31 Ill.2d 518, 523, 202 N.E.2d 512; First Nat. Bank v. Road Dist. No. 8 (1945), 389 Ill. 156, 161-62, 58 N.E.2d 884; Richter v. Collinsville Township (1981), 97 Ill.App.3d 801, 804, 53 Ill.Dec. 165, 423 N.E.2d We also agre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Erroneous Injunctions
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 71-6, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...the decree and leave the cause as it stood prior to the entry of the decree." (quoting First Nat'l Bank of Jonesboro v. Road Dist. No. 8, 58 N.E.2d 884 (Ill. 1945))); cf. Christian Sci. Reading Room Jointly Maintained v. San Francisco, 807 F.2d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1986) (Norris, J., dissen......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT