Sobieski v. City of Chicago

156 N.E. 279, 325 Ill. 259
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 20, 1927
DocketNos. 17798, 17799, 17800, 17801. Writs dismissed.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 156 N.E. 279 (Sobieski v. City of Chicago) 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
Sobieski v. City of Chicago, 156 N.E. 279, 325 Ill. 259 (Ill. 1927).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court:

Peter J. Sobieski, as guardian of Walter Sobieski and of John Sobieski, Katherna Grossman and Viola Pauley each obtained a judgment against the city of Chicago, and upon failure of the city to pay the judgments on demand each filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. Demurrers were filed to these petitions and sustained. Leave was given to amend the petitions but the amendment was not made. In each case the parties assumed that the amendment had been made and proceeded accordingly. The circuit court entered its judgment awarding the writ in each case, and the city appealed to the Appellate Court for the First District. There the judgments were affirmed, and the causes are now before this court on certiorari. The four causes have been consolidated for hearing in this court.

From the briefs filed in the consolidated cause it appears that plaintiff in error has paid the judgments which it was commanded to pay but did not pay the costs in the mandamus proceedings. The principal question involved in the mandamus proceedings no longer exists. The only purpose in reviewing the action of the Appellate Court in affirming the order of the circuit court directing the writs to issue is to determine who shall pay the costs in the mandamus proceedings. Where the substantial questions involved in the trial court no longer exist this court will not review the cause merely to determine the liability for costs. Wick v. Chicago Telephone Co. 277 Ill. 338; In re Croker, 175 N. Y. 158, 67 N. E. 307; Wingert v. First Nat. Bank, 223 U. S. 670, 32 Sup. Ct. 391; 3 Corpus Juris, 365.

The writ of error issued in each of these causes is dismissed.

Writs dismissed.

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

Related

Massell v. Daley
89 N.E.2d 361 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1949)
First National Bank v. Road District No. 8
54 N.E.2d 847 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1944)
McIlvaine v. Commissioner
29 B.T.A. 304 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1933)
Tuttle v. Gunderson
173 N.E. 175 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1930)
Elgin National Watch Co. v. Commissioner
17 B.T.A. 339 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1929)
Elgin Nat'l Watch Co. v. Commissioner
17 B.T.A. 339 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1929)
Goss v. Board of Education
247 Ill. App. 58 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 N.E. 279, 325 Ill. 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sobieski-v-city-of-chicago-ill-1927.