Loven v. People

Appellate Court of Illinois

Loven v. People

46 Ill. App. 306, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 353

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 28, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 46 Ill. App. 306 (Loven v. People) 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

Loven v. People, 46 Ill. App. 306, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 353 (Ill. Ct. App. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Shepard.

The plaintiff in error was adjudged guilty of contempt by the Circuit Court for failure to comply with an order of said court on the chancery side thereof. The essential part of the order was as follows: “ It is therefore ordered that the defendant, Sam Loven, be committed and confined in the county jail of Cook County, Illinois, for the term of sixty days from this date, to wit: Hovember 30, A. D. 1891.” From said order an appeal was prayed but was denied, whereupon this writ of error was prosecuted.

On December 4, 1891, plaintiff in error moved this court to make the writ of error a supersedeas, but the motion was denied. The order of commitment was for sixty days from a particular date, Hovember 30, 1891, which time has long since elapsed. If plaintiff in error was arrested under the order he has long since served out his time; if not arrested the order could not now be enforced.

In such a case any order of this court would be idle and useless. A reversal would be inoperative to relieve the plaintiff in error from the punishment he has suffered, and an affirmance could not restore vitality to an order limited to particular dates long since passed. The writ of error will therefore be dismissed. People v. Sweeting, 2 Johns. 184.

Dismissedl

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

Mr. Justice Shepard.

The plaintiff in error was adjudged guilty of contempt by the Circuit Court for failure to comply with an order of said court on the chancery side thereof. The essential part of the order was as follows: “ It is therefore ordered that the defendant, Sam Loven, be committed and confined in the county jail of Cook County, Illinois, for the term of sixty days from this date, to wit: Hovember 30, A. D. 1891.” From said order an appeal was prayed but was denied, whereupon this writ of error was prosecuted.

On December 4, 1891, plaintiff in error moved this court to make the writ of error a supersedeas, but the motion was denied. The order of commitment was for sixty days from a particular date, Hovember 30, 1891, which time has long since elapsed. If plaintiff in error was arrested under the order he has long since served out his time; if not arrested the order could not now be enforced.

In such a case any order of this court would be idle and useless. A reversal would be inoperative to relieve the plaintiff in error from the punishment he has suffered, and an affirmance could not restore vitality to an order limited to particular dates long since passed. The writ of error will therefore be dismissed. People v. Sweeting, 2 Johns. 184.

Dismissedl

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 Ill. App. 306, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loven-v-people-illappct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack