Schoen v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 66--31 |
| Citation | 222 N.E.2d 332,77 Ill.App.2d 315 |
| Parties | Harry E. SCHOEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO., a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Moehle, Moehle & Reardon, Pekin, for appellant.
Miller, Westervelt & Johnson, Peoria, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County dismissing plaintiff's amended complaint on defendant's motion. The complaint was for breach of an alleged oral contract of employment, and the trial judge held that this complaint should be dismissed because it appeared on its face that the alleged oral contract of employment was terminable at the will of either party, and therefore unenforceable at law. The order of the Circuit Court dismissing the complaint provided, inter alia, that '* * * the court doth order that the motion of the defendant to dismiss the amended complaint is allowed * * * and the amended complaint is hereby dismissed.' The defendant has filed with this court a motion to dismiss the appeal on ground that said order is not final and appeable and that therefore this court is without jurisdiction to review this case.
The jurisdiction of Appellate Courts is limited to reviewing appeals from final judgments of the Circuit Courts, except in those specific cases where appeals from interlocutory orders is permitted by Supreme Court Rule. Article VI, § 7, Constitution of Illinois, 1870, S.H.A.; Supreme Court Rule 31, Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, c. 110, § 101.31. In Village of Niles v. Szczesny, 13 Ill.2d 45, 147 N.E.2d 371, a final and appealable order was defined as follows:
The obvious purpose therefore is to prevent a multiplicity of suits and piecemeal appeals. Consequently, those trial orders dismissing or striking complaints, which if affirmed, might result in the filing by the plaintiff of a new suit or amended complaint arising from the same transaction, are found not to be final and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hassett Storage Warehouse, Inc. v. Board of Election Com'rs for City of Chicago
...had to so indicate to the trial court, whereafter a final judgment would have been entered for defendants. Schoen v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1966), 77 Ill.App.2d 315, 222 N.E.2d 332. Defendants have cited no authority, nor has our independent research revealed any, specifically on the poin......
-
Smith v. Central Illinois Regional Airport
...Medical Center at Hoffman Estates, Inc. 184 Ill.App.3d 545, 132 Ill.Dec. 737, 540 N.E.2d 477 (1989); Schoen v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 77 Ill.App.2d 315, 222 N.E.2d 332 (1966). He also could have elected, as he did here, to voluntarily dismiss the count because the upshot of the court's Fe......
-
Cole v. Hoogendoorn, Talbot, Davids
...Ill.Dec. 814, 437 N.E.2d 341; Martin v. Marks, 80 Ill.App.3d 915, 36 Ill.Dec. 291, 400 N.E.2d 711 (1980); Schoen v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 77 Ill. App.2d 315, 222 N.E.2d 332 (1966). Where an order is not final and appealable, the trial court cannot confer appellate jurisdiction by simply ......
-
Miller v. Suburban Medical Center at Hoffman Estates, Inc.
...A final and appealable order terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the cause. (Schoen v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1966), 77 Ill.App.2d 315, 222 N.E.2d 332 (quoting Niles v. Szczesny (1958), 13 Ill.2d 45, 147 N.E.2d 371).) This court has previously held "an order dis......