TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Buck v. County of Hamilton

John J. Buck v. The County of Hamilton

Buck v. Cnty. of Hamilton, 99 Ill. 507 (1881)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 21, 1881
Judges
Scott
Citations
99 Ill. 5071881 Ill. LEXIS 203
Syllabus
Appeal from an Appellate Court — what is a final judgment. judgment. 6 0 0 i
Summary
Writ of Error to the Appellate Court for the Fourth District; — heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Hamilton County; the Hon. William C. Jones, Judge, presiding.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Scott

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Scott delivered the opinion of the Court:

This suit was brought by John J. Buck, against the county of Hamilton, to recover money which he alleges was due him from the county for deputy and clerk hire, during a period he was clerk of the county of Hamilton. On the trial in the circuit court, plaintiff recovered a judgment, in the sum of $2132.38. That judgment, on the appeal of the county to the Appellate Court, was reversed, and the cause remanded. The plaintiff brings the case to this court on error. Our opinion is, this is not a case where a writ of error will lie from the Supreme Court to the Appellate Court. The Practice act provides, that “ in all criminal cases, and in all cases where a franchise or freehold, or the validity of a statute is involved, and in all other cases where the sum or value in controversy shall exceed $1000, exclusive of costs, which shall be heard in any of the Appellate Courts upon errors assigned, if the judgment of the Appellate Court be that the order, judgment or decree of the court below be affirmed, or if final judgment or decree be rendered therein in the Appellate Court, or if the judgment, order or decree of the Appellate Court be such that no further proceedings can be had in the court below except to carry into effect the mandate of the Appellate Court, any party to such cause shall be permitted to remove the same to the Supreme Court by appeal or writ of error.” Itwill be perceived the case at bar falls within no provision of this statute. The judgment of the court below was not affirmed by the Appellate Court, no final judgment was entered by that court in the cause, nor was the judgment rendered such that no further proceedings could be had in the court below except to cany into effect the mandate of the Appellate Court. It will be observed the judgment of the circuit court was “reversed, and the cause remanded to the circuit court for such other aud further proceedings as to law and justice shall appertain.” The statute has not authorized either party to prosecute either an appeal, or writ of error from the Supreme Court to the Appellate Court from such a judgment. The judgment rendered by the Appellate Court in the cause was, in no sense, final. The cause may now be pending for trial in the court below, and it can not now be known but the judgment that may be renderedwill be satisfactory to both parties. At all events, no appeal or writ of error lies from such a judgment to this court, and the writ of error sued out herein must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court to hear and determine it.

Writ of Error dismissed. ■

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1884–1885: 11886–1887: 11892–1893: 21894–1895: 11896–1897: 11898–1899: 11900–1901: 11902–1903: 11906–1907: 11908–1909: 11916–1917: 21944–1945: 118842026peak 1892 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. International Bank v. Jenkins109 Ill. 219 (1884)
  2. Henning v. Eldridge33 N.E. 754 (Ill. 1893)
  3. Morris v. Beatty62 N.E.2d 478 (Ill. 1945)
  4. Funk v. Kempton77 N.E. 683 (Ill. 1906)
  5. People ex rel. City Council v. Board of Education275 Ill. 195 (1916)
  6. Englewood Connecting Railway Co. v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad117 Ill. 611 (1886)

Most recent

  1. Morris v. Beatty62 N.E.2d 478 (Ill. 1945)
  2. People ex rel. City Council v. Board of Education275 Ill. 195 (1916)
  3. People v. Brown272 Ill. 146 (1916)
  4. Hayward v. Sencenbaugh85 N.E. 939 (Ill. 1908)
  5. Funk v. Kempton77 N.E. 683 (Ill. 1906)
  6. Callahan & Son v. Ball197 Ill. 318 (1902)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list