{
  "id": 1578909,
  "name": "George F. Mueller & Sons, Inc., a Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank V. Daly, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "George F. Mueller & Sons, Inc. v. Daly",
  "decision_date": "1970-05-11",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 54,122",
  "first_page": "265",
  "last_page": "268",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 Ill. App. 2d 265"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "219 NE2d 475",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill2d 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5379840
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/35/0062-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 NE2d 129",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1951,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "409 Ill 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5309598
      ],
      "year": 1951,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "228, 229"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/409/0226-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 233,
    "char_count": 3271,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.613,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.496120908657829e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6639091699940808
    },
    "sha256": "a319c61ac8e7b2669174729cd241a1d619fb4f7f67476cb5297c5c03a99b71e7",
    "simhash": "1:97f0893603673ddb",
    "word_count": 547
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:07.974938+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George F. Mueller & Sons, Inc., a Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank V. Daly, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE MURPHY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff appeals from orders which denied plaintiff\u2019s motions both to strike defendant\u2019s answer and to dismiss defendant\u2019s counterclaim. On appeal the determinative issue is whether the orders in question are appealable orders.\nThe defendant appellee filed no brief in this court but did file a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that \u201cthis appeal is an interlocutory appeal not coming within the provisions of Rule 307 or Rule 308 of the Supreme Court of Illinois.\u201d\nIn a countermotion, plaintiff moved that this court enter \u201cany judgment order necessary to constitute the orders of March 13, 1969 and of April 3d, 1969 final orders under Rule 366(a)(5), pursuant to the affidavit of the plaintiff\u2019s attorney.\u201d In the affidavit, plaintiff\u2019s attorney states that when the orders were entered he \u201cinformed the Court that he desired to appeal from the order overruling his motion to strike portions of the said answer and that he would stand on his motion and take an appeal,\u201d and \u201cif this Court holds that the orders appealed from are interlocutory, they are so, affiant contends, because of the failure of the Court to render the proper order when the motions were overruled and affiant indicated that he intended to stand on the said motions,\u201d and \u201cThis Court has authority under Rule 366(a) (5) to correct this, and should do so to give effect to the expressed purpose of affiant.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s motion in this court and plaintiff\u2019s counter-motion were taken with the case.\nThe denial of a motion to strike or dismiss, of itself, is not a final and appealable order within the purview of the Civil Practice Act or Supreme Court Rules 307 and 308. It is a mere interlocutory order, which does not finally dispose of the proceeding so as to give this court jurisdiction on appeal. See Chicago Housing Authority v. Abrams, 409 Ill 226, 228, 229, 99 NE2d 129 (1951), and People v. Miller, 35 Ill2d 62, 219 NE2d 475 (1966), where it is said (p 67):\n\u201cWe have uniformly held, both in civil and criminal cases, that no appeal lies from an interlocutory order in the absence of a statute or rule specifically authorizing such review. . . . The order denying the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss was an interlocutory order. . . . Therefore, unless specific authority can be found authorizing an appeal from such an order the appellate court was without jurisdiction to consider it.\u201d\nAfter examining this record, we think it is obvious that the orders appealed from are not \u201cfinal orders\u201d but \u201cinterlocutory orders\u201d which do not meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rules 307 or 308 to be appeal-able.\nAs we are not persuaded that the provisions of Rule 366 (a) (5) authorize this court, under the circumstances portrayed here, to enter a judgment or order so as to make the instant orders final or appealable orders, this court is without jurisdiction to hear the merits of plaintiff\u2019s appeal, and it is hereby dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.\nBURMAN, P. J. and ADESKO, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE MURPHY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Edward Jones, of Blue Island, for appellant.",
      "No brief for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George F. Mueller & Sons, Inc., a Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank V. Daly, Defendant-Appellee.\nGen. No. 54,122.\nFirst District, First Division.\nMay 11, 1970.\nJ. Edward Jones, of Blue Island, for appellant.\nNo brief for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0265-01",
  "first_page_order": 271,
  "last_page_order": 274
}