People ex rel. Munn v. McGoorty
Decision Date | 22 December 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 10427.,10427. |
Citation | 270 Ill. 610,110 N.E. 791 |
Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. MUNN et al. v. McGOORTY, Judge. |
Court | Illinois 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.
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:
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:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana
...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
...... 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
......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
......2, §§ 539 to 560; People v. McGoorty, 270 Ill. 610, 110 N. E. 610, 10 N. C. C. A. 978; Stacks v. ......