Brennan v. Kinsley

Appellate Court of Illinois

Brennan v. Kinsley

70 Ill. App. 645, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 647

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJuly 1, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 Ill. App. 645 (Brennan v. Kinsley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brennan v. Kinsley, 70 Ill. App. 645, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 647 (Ill. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Wright

delivered the opinion op the Court.

The appellants appeal to this court from an order of the Circuit Court refusing their motion to dissolve the injunction issued in the case. Appellee has moved this court to dismiss the appeal, and for cause urges that the statute of June 14, 1887, in force July 1,1887 (3 Starr & Curtiss, 3171), entitled, “ An act to provide for appeals from interlocutory orders granting injunctions or appointing receivers,” in so far as it purports to allow an appeal from an order overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction, violates Sec, 13, Art. 4 of the Constitution, because the subject of overruling motions to dissolve injunctions is not expressed in the title of the act. We think the question of the validity of the statute in the respect specified fairly arises, and if that is true as we think it clearly follows, the appeal should have been taken directly to the Supreme Court, we being prohibited by the statute from passing upon a question of that nature. The Appellate Court of the First District have decided this question in the same way. Taylor v. Kirby, 31 App. 658; Henkleman v. Peterson, 40 App. 540; Chicago v. Beck, 44 App. 47; Black Diamond Co. v. Waterloo, 62 App. 206.

The appeal will therefore be dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Wright

delivered the opinion op the Court.

The appellants appeal to this court from an order of the Circuit Court refusing their motion to dissolve the injunction issued in the case. Appellee has moved this court to dismiss the appeal, and for cause urges that the statute of June 14, 1887, in force July 1,1887 (3 Starr & Curtiss, 3171), entitled, “ An act to provide for appeals from interlocutory orders granting injunctions or appointing receivers,” in so far as it purports to allow an appeal from an order overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction, violates Sec, 13, Art. 4 of the Constitution, because the subject of overruling motions to dissolve injunctions is not expressed in the title of the act. We think the question of the validity of the statute in the respect specified fairly arises, and if that is true as we think it clearly follows, the appeal should have been taken directly to the Supreme Court, we being prohibited by the statute from passing upon a question of that nature. The Appellate Court of the First District have decided this question in the same way. Taylor v. Kirby, 31 App. 658; Henkleman v. Peterson, 40 App. 540; Chicago v. Beck, 44 App. 47; Black Diamond Co. v. Waterloo, 62 App. 206.

The appeal will therefore be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 Ill. App. 645, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brennan-v-kinsley-illappct-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack