TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McEwen v. McEwen

John McEwen v. Mary McEwen

McEwen v. McEwen, 55 Ill. App. 340 (1894)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 15, 1894
Judges
Shepard
Citations
55 Ill. App. 3401894 Ill. App. LEXIS 420
Headnotes
1. Okdeb of Commitment—What is Not.—An order lacking the element of directing punishment either by fine or imprisonment is not a final order or judgment of commitment. 2. Reoobd—When It Does Not Purport to Contain All the Evidence. —The Appellate Court is not warranted in reviewing an order or judgment upon the merits where the transcript of the record does not purport to contain all the evidence upon which the order or judgment is based.
Summary
Memorandum.—Bill for separate maintenance. Error to reverse an order of commitment. Entered by the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1893, and dismissed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Shepard

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a bill for separate maintenance. The assigned errors attack a supposed order for the payment of temporary alimony, and a supposed judgment, or order, of commitment for a contempt in refusing to comply with the alimony order.

If an order for the payment of alimony was ever entered in the cause it is not shown by the record.

And if any order for the commitment of the plaintiff in error was ever entered in the cause the record does not show it.

The order complained of by counsel for the plaintiff in error, and assigned for error, as being an order of commitment, is as follows:

“ It appearing to the court that the defendant is guilty of a contempt of this court for willfully refusing to pay the sum of $120 temporary alimony now due to complainant, Mary McEwen, in the case of Mary McEwen v. John McEwen, now pending in this court, and known as Gen. No. 136,310, under order of January 19, A. D. 1892, it is therefore ordered that an attachment issue against the said John McEwen returnable forthwith.”

Such is no final order or judgment of commitment. It is entirely lacking in the element of directing punishment either by fine or imprisonment. The whole force of it is to direct an attachment of the body of the plaintiff in error and bring him into court, there to answer unto and abide by such further order as might be entered by the court for an enforcement of the alimony order. Ex parte Henry Petrie, 38 Ill. 498 ; see forms in Eapalje on Contempt.

The order is purely interlocutory and not reviewable.

As already said, the order for alimony referred to in the order for attachment nowhere appears in the record.

An.order or judgment to be attacked for error must be shown. But even if it were shown we would not be warranted in reviewing it upon the merits, for the reason that the transcript of the record certified to us by the clerk of the Superior Court does not purport to contain all the evidence upon which the order, if one were made, was based.

The certificate of the clerk is that the transcript is a “ copy of a certain bill of complaint, ansiver, replication, notice, certain motions and all affidavits now on file in my office, and of certain orders made and entered of record in said court,” in sa'd cause.

Non constat but that the order, if made, was based on evidence other than that furnished by any of the papers referred to in the certificate.

There is before us no final order or judgment that can either be affirmed or reversed, and the writ will, therefore, be dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1940: 11947: 11959: 119402026peak 1940 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bulandr v. Bulandr162 N.E.2d 585 (Ill. App. Ct. 1959)
  2. Flaningam v. Flaningam73 N.E.2d 652 (Ill. App. Ct. 1947)
  3. Schmalfeld v. Cassady30 N.E.2d 143 (Ill. App. Ct. 1940)

Most recent

  1. Bulandr v. Bulandr162 N.E.2d 585 (Ill. App. Ct. 1959)
  2. Flaningam v. Flaningam73 N.E.2d 652 (Ill. App. Ct. 1947)
  3. Schmalfeld v. Cassady30 N.E.2d 143 (Ill. App. Ct. 1940)

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
Ex parte Petrie, 38 Ill. 498 (1865) 13

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