Fleischman v. Walker
| Decision Date | 30 September 1878 |
| Citation | 1878 WL 10269,91 Ill. 318 |
| Parties | ISAAC FLEISCHMANv.SAMUEL J. WALKER et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county.
This was a motion made by the appellees to dismiss the appeal.
Mr. A. M. PENCE, for the appellant.
Mr. JOHN L. THOMPSON, for the appellees.
The motion in this case to dismiss the appeal raises the same question considered by the court in the opinion filed at this term in Young v. Stearns, 91 Ill. 221. We are urged to reconsider the decision announced in that case; and, impelled by a consideration of the importance of the question involved to the profession and to litigants, rather than by any perceived difficulty in its solution, we will, without repeating the argument upon which that decision is based, refer to the additional points suggested by appellant in his brief filed in opposition to this motion. The point is made, that sections 67 and 88 of the Practice act, in so far as they assume to increase the jurisdiction of the Appellate courts and restrict the jurisdiction of this court, are in violation of section 13 of article 4 of the constitution, which provides, that “no act hereafter passed shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”
The title of the act in question is, “An act to amend an act entitled ‘an act in regard to practice in courts of record.’ ”
The several courts of record in this State are either recognized or created by, or are authorized to be created by the constitution. The jurisdiction of some of these courts is fixed by the constitution itself, while the jurisdiction of others is left, under certain restrictions, to be determined by the General Assembly. Of this latter class are the Appellate courts, and it depended altogether upon the legislative will whether such courts should be created or not, and what appellate jurisdiction they should have if created; and this legislative will was restricted only in these respects: that such courts should be of uniform organization and jurisdiction, and that their determinations should not be final in certain specified cases. The Appellate Court act created such appellate courts, provided for their organization, and gave them a certain and uniform jurisdiction.
By sections 67 and 88 of the Practice act this jurisdiction was increased, and we see no valid reason why this could not be so done. The mode and order of procedure in obtaining compensation for an injury by action or suit in the legally established courts, from the inception of such suit until it ends in the final determination of the court of last resort, is all comprehended in the term “practice.” The relative jurisdictions of the several courts; the modes by which and the extent to which controversies may be transferred, for trial or for review, from one tribunal to another; and, where several transfers are allowed, the order of sequence in such transfers, are all included in what is called the practice of the courts. The word practice is so understood and treated by the text writers, and it is defined by Bouvier to be “the form, manner and order of conducting and carrying on suits or prosecutions in the courts through their various stages, according to the principles of law, and the rules laid down by the respective courts.” Said sections legitimately appertain to the course of practice in the courts of record, and are germane to the subject expressed in the title. It was held in Murphy v. Menard, 11 Texas, 673, under a similar constitutional requirement, that an act “to regulate proceedings in the county court,” properly embraced a provision giving an appeal to the District Court, and regulating the proceedings therein on the appeal. See, also, Robinson v. Skipworth, 23 Ind. 311.
The objection here made would apply with equal or greater force to the matter of the jurisdiction of circuit courts in appeals from justices of the peace. Section 12 of article 6 of the constitution provides, that circuit courts shall have such appellate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Katz v. Herrick
...32 Colo. 527, 77 P. 853; State v. County Court, 128 Mo. 427, 30 S.W. 103, 31 S.W. 23; State v. Power, 63 Neb. 496, 88 N.W. 769; Fleishman v. Walker, 91 Ill. 318; Paxton Co. v. Farmers' Irr. Co., 45 Neb. 884, 64 N.W. 343; State v. Cantwell, 179 Mo. 245, 78 S.W. 569; State v. Wilson, 80 Tenn.......
-
Stein v. Meyers
...646,50 L. R. A. 519; 8 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 28. The keeping of the records of a court is a matter of practice. In Fleischman v. Walker, 91 Ill. 318, the court said: ‘The mode and order of procedure in obtaining compensation for an injury by action or suit in the legally establis......
-
Hunt v. Rosenbaum Grain Corp., 21995.
...to the principles of law and rules laid down by the respective courts.’ Therens v. Therens, 267 Ill. 592, 108 N. E. 712, 715;Fleischman v. Walker, 91 Ill. 318. In People v. Onahan, supra, it was held that the act providing for preparation of the jury list and selection of grand and petit ju......
-
Drainage Com'rs of Town of Niles v. Harms
... ... v. Fisher, 141 Ill. 614, 31 N. E. 406, that question was fully considered, and the court, citing Young v. Stearns, 91 Ill. 221, and Fleischman v. Walker, 91 Ill. 318, held that there are only four classes of cases in which there is a constitutional right of appeal or writ of error to this ... ...