Williams v. Huey

Frank M. Williams in Error v. Ann Eliza Huey in Error

Williams v. Huey, 263 Ill. 275 (1914)

Court: Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: April 23, 1914
Judges: Chiee, Cooke
Citations: 263 Ill. 275

Headnotes

Appeals and errors—an order sustaining a demurrer is not a final, appealable order. An order sustaining a demurrer to a bill is not a final, appealable order even though it adjudges costs, and the Supreme Court, having jurisdiction to review final orders, only, will dismiss, of its own motion, a writ of error sued out to reverse the order.

Summary

Writ oE Error to the Circuit Court of Alexander county; the Hon. William N. ButlEr, 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 — Chieecooke

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

Mr. Chiee Justice Cooke delivered the opinion of the court:

On March 27, 1912, Frank M. Williams, individually and as guardian of Claude Raymond Williams, and Anna Huey Williams, filed their bill for partition in the circuit court of Alexander county. A guardian ad litem was appointed for certain infant defendants, and the • guardian ad litem demurred to the bill. The demurrer was sustained, and the complainants having elected to stand by their bill, a decree was entered “that the said defendants have and recover of and from the complainant herein their costs in this behalf expended, and that in default of payment execution issue therefor; to which judgment the complainants except and pray an appeal, * * * and this cause is continued generally.” This was the only order or decree entered. It did not dismiss the bill or otherwise finally dispose of the cause, but, on the contrary, the cause was continued. This writ of error has been sued out to review this decree.

An order sustaining a demurrer, although it adjudges costs, is not a final decree. As the statute only authorizes final judgments or decrees to be reviewed by appeal or writ of error this court has no jurisdiction of the cause and will dismiss the writ of error of its own motion. Chicago Portrait Co. v. Crayon Co. 217 Ill. 200 ; County of Franklin v. Blake, 257 id. 354.

The writ of error is dismissed.

WHf dismissed_

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Board of Education v. Board of Education22 N.E.2d 400 (Ill. App. Ct. 1939)
Trebbin v. Thoeresz146 N.E. 542 (Ill. 1925)
Winger v. Chicago City Bank & Trust Co.60 N.E.2d 560 (Ill. App. Ct. 1945)
Chicago Housing Authority v. Abrams99 N.E.2d 129 (Ill. 1951)
Miller v. Bunn168 N.E. 303 (Ill. 1929)
Gould v. Klabunde63 N.E.2d 258 (Ill. App. Ct. 1945)

Most recent

People ex rel. Pollution Control Board v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co.281 N.E.2d 757 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972)
Chicago Housing Authority v. Abrams99 N.E.2d 129 (Ill. 1951)
Gould v. Klabunde63 N.E.2d 258 (Ill. App. Ct. 1945)
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)
Wiggins v. Union Trust Co.266 Ill. App. 560 (1932)

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