Uptown Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Puris

• Decision Date: 18 November 1959
• Docket Number: No. 35389,35389
• Parties: UPTOWN NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, Appellee, v. Virginia Farmer PURIS et al. (State Bank of St. Charles, Appellant.)
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 426

162 N.E.2d 426

17 Ill.2d 547

UPTOWN NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, Appellee, v. Virginia Farmer PURIS et al. (State Bank of St. Charles, Appellant.)

No. 35389.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 18, 1959.

Hempstead, Redman & Shearer, St. Charles (Richard D. Shearer, St. Charles, of counsel), for appellant.

Earnest A. Eklund, and John N. Thornburn, Chicago, for appellee.

DAILY, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the municipal court of Chicago in a garnishment proceeding which had its origin when appellant, the State Bank of St. Charles, financed, repossessed and sold an automobile which had already been financed by appellee, the Uptown National Bank of Chicago, whose interest was secured by a judgment note and chattel mortgage. Jurisdiction of this court upon direct appeal is apparently sought to be sustained on the ground that the validity of article II of chapter 3 of the Motor Vehicle Law is involved. Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 95 1/2, pars. 3-201 to 3-210.

While the parties have raised no question as to our jurisdiction, it is our duty to consider such a question when it appears, and to decline to take jurisdiction when it is apparent on the record that no constitutional or other jurisdictional question (see: Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 110, par. 75(1)(a), is necessary involved in the case. Northwestern Institute of Foot Surgery and Chiropody v. Thompson, 386 Ill. 615; Hackner v. Van Wyck, 381 Ill. 622, 55 N.E.2d 61. The cited authorities, together with Leffler v. Browning, 14 Ill.2d 225, 151 N.E.2d 342; Village of Lansing v. Hacker, 7 Ill.2d 258, 130 N.E.2d 265, and many other decisions which could be cited, firmly establish that in order to give this court jurisdiction upon direct appeal on the ground that the validity of a statute is involved it must affirmatively appear that the validity of the statute was urged upon the court, ruled upon, and the ruling preserved for review and error assigned thereon in this court.

The record in the present case, including the pleadings, report of proceedings and orders of the court, is totally devoid of any showing that the validity of the statute in question was either raised or ruled upon in the trial court. Indeed, its validity is not contested in this court; instead, each of the parties rely upon the security provisions of the Motor Vehicle Law and charge that violation by the other was what permitted the double financing to be accomplished. Under the circumstances, we would be justified in holding that any question of...