Peterson v. Tazewell County

Decision Date12 June 1975
Docket NumberNo. 74--237,74--237
Citation29 Ill.App.3d 915,330 N.E.2d 888
PartiesJames D. PETERSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TAZEWELL COUNTY, Illinois, a Municipal Corporation, and Harry Condon, as County Treasurer and ex officio County Collector of Tazewell County, Illinois, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Rehearing Denied July 8, 1975.

G. Joseph Weller, Moehle, Moehle, Reardon Assoc., Washington, for plaintiffs-appellants.

C. Brett Bode, State's Atty., Thomas Leiter, Sp. Asst., Pekin, for defendant-appellees.

BARRY, Justice:

This is an action by plaintiffs for themselves and all other taxpayers in Tazewell County to enjoin defendants from transferring sums from the county's general fund to the county nursing home account to cover an operating deficit. The second amended complaint alleges no adequate remedy at law and that the disbursement, if permitted, would wrongfully divert public moneys to private use in violation of Article I, Section 2 and of Article VIII, Sections 1(a) and (b) of the 1970 Constitution, S.H.A., since the operating deficit derives from the county board's failure to charge private, paying patients the full cost of their care as required by Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 34, secs. 303(7), 5368, 5369, and 5373. On defendants' motion, the foregoing pleading was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and for other defects appearing on the face. The order of dismissal contains a finding that 'there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal . . ..' Accordingly, plaintiffs have filed this appeal which we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding that there are multiple parties in this litigation, only a single claim is involved and no final, appealable order has been entered on that single claim as to any party. An order dismissing the second amended complaint is not a final judgment and is not appealable. Rutledge v. Niewoehner, 1 Ill.App.3d 2, 272 N.E.2d 409 (5th Dist., 1971). To be a final appealable order, the dismissal must have been entered with prejudice (Brainerd v. First Lake County National Bank of Libertyville, 1 Ill.App.3d 780, 275 N.E.2d 468 (2d Dist. 1971), so as to finally terminate litigation on the claim, if we affirm. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Le Pes, 3 Ill.App.3d 817, 279 N.E.2d 184 (5th Dist., 1972); see also, Joliet Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. O'Hare International Bank, 12 Ill.App.3d 1012, 299 N.E.2d 350, 351 (3d Dist., 1973). Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 110A) recites:

'If multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are involved in an action, an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Board of Trustees of Community College Dist. No. 508 v. Rosewell, 1-88-3024
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 4 Diciembre 1992
    ...Thus, in addition to the requirement that the order be final as to the individual claim or party involved (Peterson v. Tazewell (1975), 29 Ill.App.3d 915, 330 N.E.2d 888), it must contain an express written finding that there is no just reason for delay of enforcement or appeal. In In re Ap......
  • St. Joseph Data Service, Inc. v. Thomas Jefferson Life Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 18 Julio 1979
    ...delaying enforcement or appeal. The rule, however, does not dispense with the necessity of a final order. (Peterson v. Tazewell County (1975), 29 Ill.App.3d 915, 330 N.E.2d 888.) As the committee comments to the rule note: "(I)t is not the court's finding that makes the judgment final, but ......
  • O'Hara v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 30 Septiembre 1985
    ...N.E.2d 480, 483. See also Lundy v. Whiting Corp. (1981), 93 Ill.App.3d 244, 48 Ill.Dec. 752, 417 N.E.2d 154; Peterson v. Tazewell County (1975), 29 Ill.App.3d 915, 330 N.E.2d 888. Plaintiffs argue that defendant's motion to dismiss was an involuntary dismissal pursuant to Section 2-619 of t......
  • Reagan v. Baird
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 20 Diciembre 1985
    ...to this issue (Arnold Schaffner Inc. v. Goodman (1979), 73 Ill.App.3d 729, 29 Ill.Dec. 818, 392 N.E.2d 375; Peterson v. Tazewell County (1975), 29 Ill.App.3d 915, 330 N.E.2d 888) do not require a different conclusion, for both cases simply hold that for an order of dismissal to be final and......
  • 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