County of Franklin v. Blake

The County of Franklin v. William B. Blake

Cnty. of Franklin v. Blake, 100 N.E. 929 (Ill. 1913)

Court: Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: February 20, 1913
Judges: Cooke
Citations: 100 N.E. 929257 Ill. 354

Cited by 5

Headnotes

Appeals and errors—order sustaining demurrer is not a final order. An order sustaining a demurrer to an information but containing no words equivalent to a judgment that the petitioner take nothing by the writ or that the defendants go hence without day is not a final order and no appeal lies therefrom, as the statute limits the right of appeal to final judgments, only.

Summary

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Franklin county; the Hon. Jacob R. Creighton, 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 — Cooke

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

Mr. Justice Cooke delivered the opinion of the court:

The State’s attorney filed an information in behalf of the county in the circuit court of Franklin county, in which he claimed that certain lands therein described had es-cheated to the county. The court sustained a demurrer to the information, but neither adjudged that the county, take nothing by the writ nor that the defendants go hence without day, and the order of the court contained no words of equivalent meaning. The recital in the record is as follows: “The court having heretofore heard the argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, the defendants’ demurrer to the petition of plaintiff filed herein is by the court sustained; to the sustaining of which demurrer the petitioner then and there excepts and elects to stand by its petition. And now, to-wit, on the same day, comes the petitioner, by its said attorneys, and prays an appeal to the Supreme Court,” etc. From this order the State’s attorney, on behalf of Franklin county, has perfected this appeal.

There was no disposition of the rights of the parties or of the suit. An order sustaining a demurrer is not a final judgment, and as the statute only authorizes appeals from final judgments this court has no jurisdiction of the cause and should dismiss the appeal of its own motion. Chicago Portrait Co. v. Crayon Co. 217 Ill. 200 .

The appeal is dismissed.

Appd dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Winger v. Chicago City Bank & Trust Co.60 N.E.2d 560 (Ill. App. Ct. 1945)
Board of Education v. Board of Education22 N.E.2d 400 (Ill. App. Ct. 1939)
First State Bank of Blanchard v. Harmon1920 OK 385, 194 P. 125
Kircher v. Hamill239 Ill. App. 496 (1926)
County of Franklin v. Blake119 N.E. 288 (Ill. 1918)

Most recent

Winger v. Chicago City Bank & Trust Co.60 N.E.2d 560 (Ill. App. Ct. 1945)
Board of Education v. Board of Education22 N.E.2d 400 (Ill. App. Ct. 1939)
Kircher v. Hamill239 Ill. App. 496 (1926)
First State Bank of Blanchard v. Harmon1920 OK 385, 194 P. 125
County of Franklin v. Blake119 N.E. 288 (Ill. 1918)

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

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Chicago Portrait Co. v. Chicago Crayon Co., 75 N.E. 473 (Ill. 1905)	50

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list