People ex rel. Munn v. McGoorty

Decision Date22 December 1915
Docket NumberNo. 10427.,10427.
Citation270 Ill. 610,110 N.E. 791
PartiesPEOPLE ex rel. MUNN et al. v. McGOORTY, Judge.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Original proceeding in mandamus by the People, on the relation of Carrie L. Munn and others, against John P. McGoorty, Judge. Writ denied.Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, of Chicago (Walter Bachrach, of Chicago, of counsel), for petitioners.

Huttmann, Cloyes, Netherton & Carr, of Chicago (Claude O. Netherton, of Chicago, of counsel), for respondent.

CRAIG, J.

The peititioners, on motion duly made, were granted leave to file in this court an original petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent, a judge of the circuit court of Cook county, to set aside and vacate a certain order entered by him denying the prayer of the petitioners for an appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District from a final order and judgment entered by the respondent while sitting as judge of said circuit court and to compel the respondent to grant said prayer for an appeal to said Appellate Court. Respondent has filed a general demurrer to the petition, and, taking such averments thereof as are well pleaded to be true, it appears from the petition that on November 10, 1914, Conrad Casparson received injuries by inhaling furmes or gases emanating from a fire caused by burning moving picture film scraps, composed of celluloid, from which he died the day following. Alma M. Casparson, administratrix of the estate of said Conrad Casparson, deceased, brought proceedings before the State Industrial Board under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1913 (Laws 1913, p. 335), to recover compensation under said act because of the fatal injuries alleged to have been received by said deceased while in the employ of the petitioners. The Industrial Board on March 5, 1915, rendered its order or decision against the petitioners and in favor of said Alma M. Casparson, administratrix. On the same day the petitioners filed in the circuit court of Cook county their petition for a writ of certiorari, praying that said writ be directed to said Industrial Board, commanding said board to certify and bring into court a full, true, and complete transcript of the records and files connceted with said proceedings, and taht said court, upon the production thereof, examine and inquire into the record of the proceedings and the decision of said board, and if said proceedings were found illegal, or unauthorized by law, that the same be quashed and set aside. Later a motion was made by the respondent to said writ of certiorari to quash the same, which motion, on hearing, was on August 24, 1915, sustained by the court, and the petition for certiorari dismissed, and it was further ordered that the decision and award of the Industrial Board be confirmed, and that Alma M. Casparson, administratrix of the estate of Conrad Casparson, deceased, have and recover from the petitioners $3,500, the amount of the award made by said Industrial Board, and that she have execution therefor. From this order the petitioners in the certiorari proceeding prayed an appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District, which prayer for an appeal was denied by the court. Thereupon said petitioners maoved the court to vacate and set aside the order denying said prayer for an appeal to the Appellate Court, which motion was denied, and the petitioners by their counsel excepted. The court thereupon fixed the amount of the bond to review said judgment, said bond to be filed within 30 days, and ordered that the petitioners be allowed 60 days within which to file their bill of exceptions.

The respondent bases his action in denying an appeal to the Appellate Court on the provisions of clause (f) of section 19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act as amended, approved June 28, 1915, in force July 1, 1915 (Laws of 1915, p. 410), which is as follows:

(f) The decision of the industrial board, acting within its powers, according to the provisions of paragraph (e) of this section, and of the arbitrator or committee of arbitration, where no review is had and his or their decision becomes the decision of the Industrial Board in accordance with the provisions of this section, shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive unless reviewed as in this paragraph hereinafter provided. (1) The circuit court of the county where any of the parties defendant any be found shall by writ of ceriorari to the Industrial Board have power to review all questions of law presented by such record. Such writ shall be issued by the clerk of such court upon praecipe. Service upon any member of the Industrial Board or the secretary thereof shall be service on the board, and service upon other parties in interest shall be by scire facias, or service may be made upon said board and other parties in interest by mailing notice of the commencement of the proceedings and the return day of the writ to the office of said board and the last known place of residence of the other parties in interest at least ten days before the return day of said writ; or (2) any party in interest may commence a suit in chancery in the circuit court of the county where any of the parties defendant may be found to review the decision of the board only for errors of law appearing on the said record of the said baord. Such suit by writ of certiorari or in chancery shall be commenced within twenty days of the receipt of notice of the decision of the board. The court may confirm or set aside the decision of the arbitrator or committee of a arbitration or Industrial Board. If the decision is set aside and the facts found in the proceedings before the board are sufficient, the court may enter such decision as is justified by law, or may remand the cause to the Industrial Board for further proceedings, and may state the questions requiring further hearing, and give such other instructions as may be proper. Judgments, orders and decrees of the circuit court under the act shall be reviewed only by the Supreme Court upon writ of error. Upon motion, the trial court shall enter of record a certificate that the cause is, or is not, in his opinion, one proper to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Upon filing with the clerk of the Supreme Court a certified copy of such a certificate that the cause is one proper to be reviewed, writ of error shall issue. If the trial court certifies that the cause is not one proper to be reviewed, the Supreme Court, in its discretion, may, nevertheless, order that writ of error issue. A writ of error, when issued, shall operate as a supersedeas. The decision of any two members of a committee of arbitration or of the Industrial Board shall be considered the decision of such committee or board, respectively.’

The relators contend that under the law an appeal lies to the Appellate Court from final orders and judgments of the circuit courts in all suits or proceedings as law except those reviewable directly by the Supreme Court, under and by virtue of section 8 of the Appellate Court Act (Hurd's Stat. 1913, p. 681), as supplemented and modified by sections 91 and 118 of the Practice Act (Hurd's State. 1913. pp. 1873, 1878); that a certiorari proceeding is a common-law action, and an appeal lies to the Appellate Court from all judgments and final orders entered therein unless some question is involved which gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction of such appeal. Accordingly it is claimed that clause (f) of section 19 of the amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act above set out is in violation of and in conflict with section 29 of article 6 of the Constitution of 1870, which is as follows:

‘All laws relating to courts shall be general, and of uniform operation; and the organization, jurisdiction, powers, proceedings and practice of all courts, of the same class or grade, so far as regulated by law, and the force and effect of the process, judgments and decrees of such courts, severally, shall be uniform.’

The argument is that a statute which seeks to deny the right to an appeal to the Appellate Court from the final orders and judgments of the circuit courts of this state in certiorari proceedings which are instituted to review the records, orders, etc., of the Industrial Board, without denying the right to such appeal from the final orders and judgments of said circuit courts and of the superior court of Cook county in certiorari proceedings instituted to review the records, orders, etc., of inferior tribunals other than the said Industrial Board, is in violation of and in conflict with said section 29 of article 6 of the Constitution.

Section 11 of article 6 of the Constitution provides that after the year 1874 Appellate Courts of uniform organization and jurisdiction may be created in districts fromed for that purpose, ‘to which such appeals and writs of error as the General Assembly may provide may be prosecuted from circuit and other courts.’ Section 12 provides that the circuit courts shall have original jurisidction of ‘all causes in law and equity.’ In pursuance of the provisions contained in said section 11 the Legislature passed an act in 1877 establishing Appellate Courts. Section 8 of that act, as amended in 1887, provides:

‘The said Appellate Courts created by this act shall exercise appellate jurisdiction only, and have jurisdiction of all matters of appeal, or writs of error from the final judgment, orders or decrees of any of the circuit courts, or the superior court of Cook county, or county courts, or from the city courts in any suit or proceeding at law, or in chancery other than criminal cases, not misdemeanors, and cases involying a franchise or freehold or the validity of a statute.’ Hurd's Stat. 1913, p. 681.

By section 91 of the Practice Act of 1907 it is provided that:

‘Appeals shall lie to and writs of error from the Appellate Court or Supreme Court, as may be allowed by law, to review the final judgments, orders of decrees of any of the circuit courts, the superior court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • State v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • November 2, 1937
    ...v. Reinecke, 181 La. 917, 160 So. 629, 97 A.L.R. 1184; Ettor v. Tacoma, 228 U.S. 148, 33 S.Ct. 428, 57 L.Ed. 773; People v. McGoorty, 270 Ill. 610, 618, 110 N.E. 791; Red River Valley Nat. Bank v. Craig, 181 U.S. 548, 553, 21 S.Ct. 703, 45 L.Ed. 994; Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot Co., 1......
  • State ex rel. Kowats v. Arnold
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 9, 1947
    ...... to that end construes and applies the law. People ex rel. v. White, 334 Ill. 465, 166 N.E. 100, 64 A.L.R. 1006. (15) An extension of the ... White v. City of Ottawa, 318 Ill. 463; People v. McGoorty, 270 Ill. 610. (17) A legislative enactment. should not be set aside unless its ......
  • Woodward v. Rule
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • February 13, 1934
    ......People v. Ford, 289 Ill. 550, 124 N. E. 549;O'Brien v. People, 216 Ill. 354, 75 ...People v. McGoorty, 270 Ill. 610, 110 N. E. 791; 4 Mason on Special Assessments (2d Ed.) p. ......
  • Mingus v. Wadley
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • June 16, 1926
    ......2, §§ 539 to 560; People v. McGoorty, 270 Ill. 610, 110 N. E. 610, 10 N. C. C. A. 978; Stacks v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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