Indiana Millers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. People

• Citation: 49 N.E. 364,170 Ill. 474
• Parties: INDIANA MILLERS' MUT. FIRE INS. CO. et al. v. PEOPLE.
• Decision Date: 22 December 1897
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

170 Ill. 474

49 N.E. 364

INDIANA MILLERS' MUT. FIRE INS. CO. et al.

v.PEOPLE.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 22, 1897.

Appeal from appellate court, Fourth district.

Action by the people of the state of Illinois against the Indiana Millers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appealed to the court of appeals, and, from a judgment of affirmance therein (65 Ill. App. 355), they appeal to the supreme court. Affirmed.

Myron H. Beach, for appellants.

John M. Herbert, State's Atty., and M. T. Moloney, Atty. Gen. (R. J. Stephens and Hill & Martin, of counsel), for the People.

WILKIN, J.

This is an action of debt, begun in the circuit court of Jackson county, in the name of the people of the state of Illinois against the appellant company and Edward Dinsley, to recover the penalty prescribed by section 4 of the act in force July 1, 1879, against foreign insurance companies, for transacting business in this state in violation of the requirements of section 1 of that statute. The declaration upon which the trial was had was of two counts, each charging a distinct offense. It was stated in the abstract that the defendants filed pleas to the merits, but what those pleas were does not appear. Issues were joined, and a trial by jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff against each of the defendants for $1,000. The defendants moved for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment; and, both of these motions being overruled, and judgment entered upon the verdict, they appealed to the appellate court for the Fourth district, and there assigned numerous errors, questioning the regularity of the proceedings in the trial court. The appellate court held that the judgment against each of the defendants was erroneous, but corrected the error by entering judgment in that court against the defendants jointly for $1,000, and overruled the other errors assigned. From that judgment, this appeal is prosecuted.

In the original brief and argument of appellants but two grounds of reversal are urged. Each count of the declaration concludes, ‘To the damage of the plaintiff of one cent.’ It is insisted that, inasmuch as the judgment largely exceeds that nominal sum, the circuit court erred in overruling the defendants' motion in arrest of judgment, and that the appellate court erroneously entered judgment for $1,000 against them in that court. Many cases are cited which are supposed to sustain the position that, regardless of the cause of action, the judgment in debt can in no case exceed the ad damnum; but the cases are not in point. This is an action on a statute, to recover a penalty, and, as said by the appellate court, in such cases the damages inserted in the declaration need only be nominal. There was no merit in the motion in arrest of judgment.

The second point made is that the statute under which the action was brought is invalid, being in violation of the constitution of the state. We do not regard that question as properly before us. Whether the pleas questioned the validity of the statute or not, as above indicated, does not appear. It is said, however, in the argument, that the question was raised upon the trial by the refusal of an instruction asked by the defendants. It is immaterial, in our view of the case, whether the validity of the statute was properly in issue before the trial court, and jury or not. Our statute expressly provides that cases involving the validity of a statute shall be taken directly to the supreme court. 3 Starr & C. Ann. St. (2d Ed.) p. 3114, c. 110, § 88. In this case, as we have already stated, the defendants elected to prosecute their appeal to the appellate court, and there assign errors upon the record as to the regularity of the proceeding below, which was decided adversely to them in that court; and they now...