Dyers & Cleaners' Union No. 10,168 v. Schuettauff

Appellate Court of Illinois

Dyers & Cleaners' Union No. 10,168 v. Schuettauff

113 Ill. App. 422, 1904 Ill. App. LEXIS 574

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 31, 1904

DocketGen. No. 11,277

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 Ill. App. 422 (Dyers & Cleaners' Union No. 10,168 v. Schuettauff) 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

Dyers & Cleaners' Union No. 10,168 v. Schuettauff, 113 Ill. App. 422, 1904 Ill. App. LEXIS 574 (Ill. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Ball

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction granted on an interlocutory motion.

The right of appeal is purely statutory. The act under which this appeal is taken is that of June 14, 1887, entitled, “ An act to provide for appeals from interlocutory orders granting injunctions or appointing receivers.” The language of the act provides for an appeal in such a case as is here presented; but its title does not include “ an order overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction.” Section 13, article 4 of the Constitution of 1870 declares that “Mo act hereafter passed shall embrace more than one. subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be embraced in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.” It has been held this provision so limits the wording.of the act that an appeal such as is here attempted to be taken is void and of no effect. Taylor v. Kirby, 31 Ill. App. 658; City of Chicago v. Beck, 44 Ill. App. 47; Black Diamond Co. v. Waterloo, 62 Ill. App. 206. The case of Hately v. Myers, 96 Ill. App. 218, holds to the contrary; but under the authorities cited we cannot follow it.

The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Mr. Justice Ball

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction granted on an interlocutory motion.

The right of appeal is purely statutory. The act under which this appeal is taken is that of June 14, 1887, entitled, “ An act to provide for appeals from interlocutory orders granting injunctions or appointing receivers.” The language of the act provides for an appeal in such a case as is here presented; but its title does not include “ an order overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction.” Section 13, article 4 of the Constitution of 1870 declares that “Mo act hereafter passed shall embrace more than one. subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be embraced in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.” It has been held this provision so limits the wording.of the act that an appeal such as is here attempted to be taken is void and of no effect. Taylor v. Kirby, 31 Ill. App. 658; City of Chicago v. Beck, 44 Ill. App. 47; Black Diamond Co. v. Waterloo, 62 Ill. App. 206. The case of Hately v. Myers, 96 Ill. App. 218, holds to the contrary; but under the authorities cited we cannot follow it.

The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 Ill. App. 422, 1904 Ill. App. LEXIS 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dyers-cleaners-union-no-10168-v-schuettauff-illappct-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack