TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hartzell v. Warren

Joseph C. Hartzell v. Everett M. Warren

Hartzell v. Warren, 77 Ill. App. 274 (1898)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 26, 1898
Judges
Windes
Citations
77 Ill. App. 2741898 Ill. App. LEXIS 56
Disposition
Dismissed.
Headnotes
1. Appeals—From Interlocutory Orders.—The right of appeal from an interlocutory order is purely statutory, and in order to give the Appellate Court jurisdiction, the statute (Ch. 22, Sec. 52) must be followed. The party taking such an appeal must give bond, to be approved by the clerk of court below, etc. 2. Same—Duty of the Trial Court.—The court below has nothing to do in the way of granting appeal from an interlocutory order, nor of fixing the time within which the bond shall be given, its amount or approval. The statute fixes the time and manner of taking the appeal, and the bond must be approved by the clerk of the court below. Unless the statute in these respects is followed, this court acquires no jurisdiction. 3. Same—Duty of the Court Where it Has No Jurisdiction.—Where it appears that the court is without jurisdiction, it becomes its duty, sua sponte, to dismiss the appeal.
Summary
Appeal, from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Theodore Brentano, 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 — Windes

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

Mr. Justice Windes delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant has in this case tried to perfect an appeal to this court from an interlocutory order of injunction, entered by the Superior Court of Cook County on December 28, 1897, by praying an appeal from such order on the day it was entered, which was allowed by the Superior Court upon appellant filing an appeal bond in the sum of $250 within twenty days from the entry of the order, and by filing such bond, and having it approved by the court on the 3d day of January, 1898. Praying the appeal and having a time fixed by the court within which to file an appeal bond was unnecessary, and the approval of the bond by the court was a fruitless act. The right of appeal from such an interlocutory order is purely statutory, and in order to give this court jurisdiction of the case, the statute must be followed. The statute of this State (Oh. 22, See. 52) provides that “ the party taking 1 such appeal shall give bond, to be approved by the clerk of the court below,” etc. The court below has nothing to do by way of granting the appeal nor fixing the time within which the bond shall be given, its amount or approval. The statute fixes the time and manner of taking the appeal, and the bond must be approved by the clerk of the court below. Unless the statute in these respects is followed, this court acquires no jurisdiction, and can not, therefore, legally give any consideration to the questions argued by counsel. Alles Plumbing Co. v. Alles, 67 Ill. App. 252 and cases cited; Sidway v. Amer. Mort. Co., Id. 24; Commerce Vault Co. v. Hurd, 73 Ill. App. 107 .

When it appears the court is without jurisdiction, it becomes its duty, sua sponte, to dismiss the appeal, which is done. Wright v. People, 92 Ill. 596 ; Hart v. Burch, 31 Ill. App. 22 .

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1899: 21901: 11905: 11911: 11916: 118992026peak 1899 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Harding v. Harding Incandescent Co.98 Ill. App. 141 (1901)
  2. Neil v. Oldach86 Ill. App. 354 (1899)
  3. Iroquois Furnace Co. v. Kimbark85 Ill. App. 399 (1899)
  4. McCarthy v. City of Chicago197 Ill. App. 564 (1916)
  5. Marshall Field & Co. v. Becklenberg1 Ill. Cir. Ct. 59 (1905)
  6. Ser Vis v. Ser Vis162 Ill. App. 378 (1911)

Most recent

  1. McCarthy v. City of Chicago197 Ill. App. 564 (1916)
  2. Ser Vis v. Ser Vis162 Ill. App. 378 (1911)
  3. Marshall Field & Co. v. Becklenberg1 Ill. Cir. Ct. 59 (1905)
  4. Harding v. Harding Incandescent Co.98 Ill. App. 141 (1901)
  5. Neil v. Oldach86 Ill. App. 354 (1899)
  6. Iroquois Furnace Co. v. Kimbark85 Ill. App. 399 (1899)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Wright v. People, 92 Ill. 596 (1879) 17
Commerce Vault v. Hurd, 73 Ill. App. 107 (1898) 11
John F. Alles Plumbing Co. v. Alles, 67 Ill. App. 252 (1896) 8
Hart v. Burch, 31 Ill. App. 22 (1889) 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