Lester v. Berkowitz
| Decision Date | 16 June 1888 |
| Citation | 125 Ill. 307,17 N.E. 706 |
| Parties | LESTER et al. v. BERKOWITZ. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to circuit court, Cook county; R. S. TUTHILL, Judge.
Assumpsit by Samuel Berkowitz against John T. Lester, Roswell A. Peters, and Edward W. Bangs, trading as John T. Lester & Co., to recover profits on purchase and sale of certain stocks through defendants as brokers. From an order requiring defendants to produce in court and place in possession of the clerk certain books and papers for the inspection of plaintiff and his counsel, defendants bring error.
John S. Cook and John N. Jewett, for plaintiffs in error.
Thomas J. Sutherland, for defendant in error.
The motion made by defendant to dismiss the writ of error in this case must be allowed to prevail. The order of the circuit court upon which error is assigned is not final in the sense that an appeal may be taken from it, or writ of error may be sued out to review it. It is simply an interlocutory order, made by the court in the progress of a suit at law, and is in no sense definitive, as that term is used in the law. It is an order made, under power thought to be conferred by the statute, upon defendants to place certain books, in which the business transactions of defendants with plaintiff and other persons are recorded, in the possession of the clerk of the court, that they may be inspected by plaintiff and his attorney, in order that they might prepare for the trial of the cause. It was the privilege of defendants either to obey the order or stand in defiance of the power of the court. Had the court attempted to enforce obedience to its order by the imposition of a fine in a sum of money with an order for an execution, or by a definitive term of imprisonment, as for contempt of court, the judgment of the court imposing such fine or imprisonment would be final, and from which an appeal might be taken, or to which a writ of error would lie. That would conform exactly with the rule stated by this court in Blake's Case, 80 Ill. 523. On the reviewing of such a judgment of the court, that might deprive defendants either of their property or their liberty, the propriety of the preliminary or interlocutory order could be considered; otherwise not. The writ of error will be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Marriage of Knoerr
...divorce decree but did not impose any sanction, appellate court held that the order was not reviewable and quoted Lester v. Berkowitz, 125 Ill. 307, 308, 17 N.E. 706 (1888): "`Had the court attempted to enforce obedience to its order by the imposition of a fine in a sum of money, with an or......
-
In re Marriage of Schwieger
...Knoerr also mentioned Flaningam v. Flaningam, 331 Ill.App. 418, 420, 73 N.E.2d 652 (1947), and its citation of Lester v. Berkowitz, 125 Ill. 307, 308, 17 N.E. 706 (1888), but those cases merely stated the same principle that Valencia did, in substantially the same Finally, with a "cf." sign......
-
In re Marriage of Gutman
...or imprisonment as a sanction for contempt is final and appealable because it is an original special proceeding"); Lester v. Berkowitz, 125 Ill. 307, 308, 17 N.E. 706 (1888) ("Had the court attempted to enforce obedience to its order by the imposition of a fine * * *, or by a definitive ter......
-
Leckrone v. City of Salem, 5-85-0604
...collateral to and independent of, the case in which the contempt arises. (Hill v. Jeffery Co. (1920) 292 Ill. 490, 493 ; Lester v. Berkowitz (1888), 125 Ill. 307, 308 .) It is the end of the proceeding begun against the witness. There is nothing left to be done but enforce the judgment." (P......