TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Midkiff

The People, for use of Phœnix Nursery Company v. Harry K. Midkiff

People v. Midkiff, 51 N.E. 785 (Ill. 1898)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 24, 1898
Judges
Phillips
Citations
51 N.E. 785174 Ill. 323
Headnotes
Appeals Aim errors—wlven Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on appeal. In the absence of a certificate of importance the Appellate Court’s affirmance of a judgment for costs in favor of the defendant, in an action sounding in damages, is final.
Summary
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Third District;—heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. Edward P. Vail, 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 — Phillips

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

Mr. Justice Phillips delivered the opinion, of the court:

This is an action of debt on the official bond of Harry K. Midkiff, constable, of Decatur, Illinois. The declaration alleges he wrongfully misused a writ placed in his hands, to the injury of the plaintiff, by levying- on its property a writ of attachment whilst it was issued against one D. G-. Owens. The action of debt was for $2000, the penalty in the bond, and the damages were alleged to be $1000. Issue was made and a trial had before a jury in the circuit court of Macon county, and verdict and judgment rendered in favor of the defendants. An appeal was prosecuted to the Appellate Court for the Third District, where that judgment was affirmed.

The action sounds in damages, and the only judgment entered against the plaintiff was fop costs in the circuit court. There is no certificate by a majority of the judges of the Appellate Court that this case involves questions of law of such importance, either on account of principal or collateral interests, that it should be passed upon by the Supreme Court. There is therefore no jurisdiction in this court on this appeal. (Baxtrom, v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Co. 117 Ill. 150 ; Tucker v. Champaign Agricultural Board, 154 id. 593; Fisher v. Nubian Iron Enamel Co. 163 id. 387; Smith v. Harris, 113 id. 136.) It is not requisite that we should repeat the reasoning contained in the opinions in support of this proposition.

The appeal from the Appellate Court for the Third District is dismissed.

Appml dismM

Mr. Justice Boggs took no part in the decision of this case.

How later courts describe this case

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

1902: 11909: 119022026peak 1902 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Robards v. Wabash Railroad62 N.E. 790 (Ill. 1902)
  2. People v. Crowe88 N.E. 796 (Ill. 1909)

Most recent

  1. People v. Crowe88 N.E. 796 (Ill. 1909)
  2. Robards v. Wabash Railroad62 N.E. 790 (Ill. 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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Baxtrom v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co., 7 N.E. 268 (Ill. 1886) 3

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