Lester v. Berkowitz

17 N.E. 706, 125 Ill. 307
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJune 16, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 17 N.E. 706 (Lester v. Berkowitz) 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
Lester v. Berkowitz, 17 N.E. 706, 125 Ill. 307 (Ill. 1888).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The motion made by defendant to dismiss the writ of error in this case must be allowed to prevail. The order of the circuit court upon which error is assigned is not final, in the sense that an appeal may be taken from it, or writ of error may be sued out to review it. It is simply an interlocutory order made by the court in the progress of a suit at law, and is in no sense definitive, as that term is used in the law. It is an order made under power thought to be conferred by the statute, upon defendants, to place certain books, in which the business transactions of defendants with plaintiff and other persons are recorded, in the possession of the clerk of the court, that they may be inspected by plaintiff and his attorney, in order that they might prepare for the trial of the cause. It was the privilege of defendants either to obey the order, or stand in defiance of the power of the court. Had the court attempted to enforce obedience to its order by the imposition of a fine in a sum of money, with an order for an execution, or by a definite term of imprisonment, as for contempt of court, the judgment of the court imposing such fine or imprisonment would be final, and from which an appeal might be taken, or to which a writ of error would lie. That would conform exactly with the rule stated by this court in Blake’s case, 80 Ill. 523. On the reviewing of such a judgment of the court that might deprive defendants either of their-property or their liberty, the propriety of the preliminary or interlocutory order could be considered, otherwise not.

The writ of error will be dismissed.

Writ of error dismissed.

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

Related

In re The Matter of Sivels
2022 IL App (1st) 210346-U (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2022)
In re Marriage of Gutman
Illinois Supreme Court, 2008
Marriage of Gutman v. Gutman
902 N.E.2d 631 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2008)
In re Marriage of Schwieger
883 N.E.2d 556 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2008)
In re Marriage of Knoerr
879 N.E.2d 1053 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2007)
Bearden v. Hamby
608 N.E.2d 282 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1992)
Leckrone v. City of Salem
503 N.E.2d 1093 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1987)
People Ex Rel. Scott v. Silverstein
429 N.E.2d 483 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1981)
Madden v. Madden
558 P.2d 669 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1977)
Kryzak v. Accurate Cast Products, Inc.
349 N.E.2d 695 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1976)
Henry v. Waz
342 N.E.2d 433 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1976)
Eskandani v. Phillips
334 N.E.2d 146 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1975)
County of Cook v. Triangle Sign Co., Inc.
189 N.E.2d 25 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1963)
In re the Adjudication of the Guilt of Spector
42 Cust. Ct. 726 (U.S. Customs Court, 1959)
Moffat Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission
73 N.E.2d 423 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1947)
Flaningam v. Flaningam
73 N.E.2d 652 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1947)
Hawley Products Co. v. May
41 N.E.2d 769 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1942)
Durkin v. Hey
33 N.E.2d 463 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1941)
Hill v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co.
127 N.E. 124 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1920)
State v. Superior Court
106 P. 150 (Washington Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 N.E. 706, 125 Ill. 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lester-v-berkowitz-ill-1888.