{
  "id": 5305876,
  "name": "Masonic Fraternity Temple Association v. City of Chicago, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Masonic Fraternity Temple Ass'n v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1905-05-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 12,379",
  "first_page": "612",
  "last_page": "613",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "120 Ill. App. 612"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 3145,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "sha256": "9acf8d0d15e3de08eb1044cc2d0ddfe29fa05be54de586ba1e19a4f6d7772a6f",
    "simhash": "1:c8dc5aca523413c0",
    "word_count": 530
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:38:55.672753+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Masonic Fraternity Temple Association v. City of Chicago, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Ball\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellant filed a bill alleging that appellees forcibly and without right had closed certain assembly halls in its building, known as the Masonic Temple, for alleged violations of a city ordinance relating to stairways. A temporary injunction was issued, which upon hearing was dissolved, and the bill and supplemental bill were dismissed for want of equity.\nUpon appeal it is contended by appellant that said ordinance, so far as it is intended\u2019 to govern and regulate its building and the halls therein and the use and enjoyment of the same, is null and void because it violates the 5th and the 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and Section 2 of Article 2 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and takes and deprives appellant of its property and its use and enjoyment thereof for the purposes for which the same was constructed, and has ever since been used, without due process of law.\nWe have looked into the record and find that the questions thus raised are contained therein, and necessarily must be passed upon by this court in arriving at a decision in the case.\nBy Section 8 of the Act of 1877, creating this court (B. S. Hurd 1903, p. 569), it is provided : The said Appellate Courts created by this Act shall exercise appellate jurisdiction only, and have, jurisdiction of all matters of appeal, or writs of error from the final judgments, orders or decrees of any of the circuit courts, or the Superior Court of Cook County, or county courts, or from the city courts in any suit or proceeding at law, or in chancery other than criminal cases, not misdemeanors, and cases involving a franchise or freehold or the validity of a statute.\u201d\nIt is further provided by Section 89, Chapter 110, entitled, \u201c Practice\u201d (R. S. Hurd, 1903, p. 1412), which section was passed in 1879, that: \u201c Appeals from and writs of error to circuit courts, the Superior Court of Cook County, the Criminal Court of Cook County, county courts and city courts in all criminal cases, below the grade of felony, shall be taken directly to the Appellate Court, and in all criminal cases above the grade of misdemeanors, and cases in which a franchise or freehold or the validity of a statute or construction of the Constitution is involved; * * * shall be taken directly to the Supreme Court.\u201d\nWe have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in this case. The statute is imperative. The appeal is dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Ball"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dupee, Judah, Willard & Wolf and Allen G. Mills, for appellant.",
      "John W. Beckwith and William H. Sexton, for appellees; Edgar Bronson Tolman, Corporation Counsel, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Masonic Fraternity Temple Association v. City of Chicago, et al.\nGen. No. 12,379.\n1. Appellate court\u2014when without jurisdiction. The Appellate Court has no jurisdiction of an appeal which brings up for review the question of the constitutionality of an ordinance.\nInjunctional proceeding. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Murray F. Tuley, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1905.\nAppeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed May 29, 1905.\nDupee, Judah, Willard & Wolf and Allen G. Mills, for appellant.\nJohn W. Beckwith and William H. Sexton, for appellees; Edgar Bronson Tolman, Corporation Counsel, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0612-01",
  "first_page_order": 650,
  "last_page_order": 651
}