Hobson v. Paine

40 Ill. 25
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 40 Ill. 25 (Hobson v. Paine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hobson v. Paine, 40 Ill. 25 (Ill. 1867).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We are of opinion that a writ of error does not lie to a County Court for the purpose of bringing in review the action of that court in the appointment of an administrator of an estate.

It is true, in the case of The Unknown Heirs of Langworthy v. Baker, 23 Ill. 487, a writ of error to the County Court was entertained, but that case is clearly distinguishable from this. That was a writ of error brought to reverse an order of the County Court for a sale of real estate, at the instance of an administrator, for the payment of debts.

The County Court had been given jurisdiction, concurrent with the Circuit Court, in applications of that character, and thereby the proceedings in the County Court upon such applications were made subject to review in the same manner as proceedings in the Circuit Court could be reviewed in like applications.

In this case, however, the jurisdiction of the County Court was exclusive. An appeal could have been taken to the Circuit Court, and the law provides no appeal directly to this court. In the case referred to in 23 Ill. there could have been no appeal to the Circuit Court, and to prevent a failure of justice it was necessary that error should lie to this court.

No such rule of necessity need obtain here, and it could not have been the design of the law that the action of the County Court, in the exercise of its original and exclusive jurisdiction, in the matter of appointing an administrator, should be brought directly in review before this court, when an intermediate court of review has been appointed, by means of which justice may always be attained.

The writ of error must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Writ of error dismissed.

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

Related

Superior Coal Co. v. O'Brien
50 N.E.2d 453 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1943)
Myers v. Commissioners of Newcomb Special Drainage District
91 N.E. 1070 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1910)
Gersman v. Cooper
125 Ill. App. 402 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1906)
Durham v. Field
30 Ill. App. 121 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1889)
Kingsbury v. Sperry
10 N.E. 8 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1887)
Ennis v. Ennis
103 Ill. 95 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1882)
Haines v. People
97 Ill. 161 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1880)
Quincy Railroad Bridge Co. v. City of Quincy
77 Ill. 107 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1875)
Frans v. People ex rel. Frans
59 Ill. 427 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1871)
Horner v. Goe
54 Ill. 285 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1870)
Fitzgerald v. Glancy
49 Ill. 465 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1869)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 Ill. 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hobson-v-paine-ill-1867.