Glos v. Sanitary District of Chicago

79 N.E. 562, 224 Ill. 272
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided December 22, 1906·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam

: This court has no jurisdiction to review the decree rendered in this cause. Plaintiff in error evidently procured the writ to issue from this court instead of from the Appellate Court in the belief that a freehold was involved. That belief, however, is a mistaken one. A freehold is not involved. Gage v. Busse, 94 Ill. 590; Kronenberger v. Heinemann, 190 id. 17; Johnson v. McDonald, 196 id. 394; First Nat. Bank of Denver v. Gibson, 221 id. 295.

The writ of error will be dismissed.

Writ dismissed.

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

Glos v. Sanitary District of Chicago, 79 N.E. 562, 224 Ill. 272 (Ill. 1906).

79 N.E. 562 (Glos v. Sanitary District of Chicago) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gage v. Busse
94 Ill. 590 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1880)