{
  "id": 5192761,
  "name": "John F. Alles Plumbing Co. v. Joseph W. Alles; John F. Alles v. Same; Edward B. McKey v. Same; Warwick A. Shaw v. Same; Peter W. Anderson v. Henning Ohlssen and Anna Ohlssen; Shea, Smith & Company (a corporation) v. Felix Tramblay",
  "name_abbreviation": "John F. Alles Plumbing Co. v. Alles",
  "decision_date": "1896-11-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "252",
  "last_page": "256",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 252"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "5 Ill. App. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4764468
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/5/0556-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ill. App. 230",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4764903
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/5/0230-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill. 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2591284
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/17/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 Ill. 596",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2739559
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/92/0596-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ill. 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2753692
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/91/0318-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5115363
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/51/0112-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill. 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2593257
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/17/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Ill. 29",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        438587
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/18/0029-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5314906
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/82/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 Ill. 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3088061
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/142/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 Ill. 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        835355
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/152/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 Ill. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2893641
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/117/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 Ill. 355",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3087276
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/142/0355-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 408,
    "char_count": 7973,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.446176162679453e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9212988865374004
    },
    "sha256": "c3be779e4b6c0421996ea98b1a17105306020f8b4741298b5e97c1d8f787d0b6",
    "simhash": "1:21cd3495f04dbb3a",
    "word_count": 1400
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John F. Alles Plumbing Co. v. Joseph W. Alles. John F. Alles v. Same. Edward B. McKey v. Same. Warwick A. Shaw v. Same. Peter W. Anderson v. Henning Ohlssen and Anna Ohlssen. Shea, Smith & Company (a corporation) v. Felix Tramblay."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThe first four of these cases are appeals from an interlocutory order entered by the Superior Court, February 10, 1896, appointing a receiver of the assets of the John F. Alies Plumbing Company.\nThe fifth case is an appeal from an interlocutory order entered by the Circuit Court, July 3, 1896, granting an injunction restraining Anderson from doing certain things.\nIn neither of these five cases have any of the appellees entered any appearance in this court.\nThe last of the six cases is an appeal from an interlocutory order entered by the Superior Court, August 7, 1S96, granting an injunction restraining Shea, Smith & Company (a corporation) from doing certain things.\nThis case is argued here upon the merits by briefs on both sides.\nIn the last three of the first four cases, the appellants, at the time the order was entered, prayed and were allowed an appeal upon filing a bond in ten days, and within ten days bonds were filed, approved by a judge of the Superior Court.\nIn the first of these four, March 9, 1896, the appellant prayed and was allowed an appeal upon filing a bond in ten days, to be approved by the clerk of that court, and March 19, 1896, an order was entered extending the time for filing the bond two days. March 20, 1896, a bond, approved by that clerk, was filed.\nIn the fifth case, August 1, 1896, the appellant prayed and was allowed an appeal, upon filing a bond in twenty days, to be approved by the clerk of that court. August 13, 1896, a bond approved by that clerk was filed.\nIn the last case at the time the order was entered, the appellant prayed and was allowed an appeal upon filing a bond in forty days, to be approved by the court, and September 15, 1896, on stipulation of the parties, an order was entered extending the time for filing the bond nineteen days. September 29, 1896, a bond, approved by a judge of that court, was filed.\nWhether these appeals are properly here is a jurisdictional question.\nThe constitution. Sec. 11, Art. 6, confers upon this court jurisdiction of \u201c such appeals and writs of error as the general assembly may provide.\u201d\nThe general assembly, by an act of June 14, 1887, Starr & Curtis\u2019 St., page 3171, Ch. 110, Sec. 107, enacted that \u201c an appeal may be taken from \u201d interlocutory orders like those here involved, \u201c Prometed, that such appeal is taken within thirty days from the entry of such interlocutory order.\u201d A subsequent sentence requires that \u201c the party taking such appeal shall give bond, to be approved by the clerk of the court below, to secure costs in the Appellate Court.\u201d\nIt is hardly necessary to cite authority that appeals in this State are purely and only of statutory creation (Greve v. Goodson, 142 Ill. 355, Farson v. Gorham, 117 Ill. 137), and can be taken only in compliance with statutory conditions. Tedrick v. Wells, 152 Ill. 214; Fairbank v. Streeter, 142 Ill. 226; Darwin v. Jones, 82 Ill. 107.\nAnd this last case (as well as the first) shows that in the then opinion of the Supreme Court, the taking of an appeal wTas accomplished only by filing the bond. The case was an appeal from the County Court to the Circuit Court, and by law the appeal was to be taken in the same manner as an appeal from a justice.\nAn appeal from a court having no jurisdiction of the subject-matter, to a court having original jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and a trial there by consent, enables the latter court to render a valid judgment. Randolph County v. Ralls, 18 Ill. 29.\nSo also an invalid appeal from a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, to another court\u2019 having also original jurisdiction, and a trial there, after having submitted to the jurisdiction, has the same effect. Mitchell v. Jones, 17 Ill. 235.\nAnd the irregularity of taking a case by appeal to a court having jurisdiction to review on a writ of error, may be waived by submitting the case upon the merits. Brady v. People, 51 Ill. App. 112.\nBut nowhere is. it held that the want of jurisdiction over the subject-matter can be waived. Consent can not give the Supreme Court jurisdiction of an appeal that should have been taken to am Appellate Court. Fleischman v. Walker, 91 Ill. 318; Wright v. People, 92 Ill. 596.\nThe appellants would not contend, in the face of the repeated decisions of the Supreme Court to the contrary, that appeals would lie from these interlocutory orders, but for the act of 1887. And the objection to such appeals would be jurisdictional. Cunningham v. Loomis, 17 Ill. 555, and cases there cited; Village of Jefferson v. Bohemian Nat. Gem. Ass\u2019n, 5 Ill. App. 230.\nThis court can not \u201c acquire jurisdiction over the records of inferior courts by agreement of parties.\u201d Moore v. Bolin, 5 Ill. App. 556.\nNow that neither of these appeals was taken in compliance with the statute, is too plain for argument.\nIn each of them either the bond was filed more than thirty days after the order appealed from was entered, or it was not approved by the clerk. The statute does not contemplate that the court entering the order shall have anything to do with the appeal.\nIn many of the counties of this State\u2014I believe, without a critical search, a large majority\u2014the session of the court would be ended, and the judge gone elsewhere, before the thirty days in which the appeal might be taken would elapse.\nThe taking of an appeal under this act consists of a single act\u2014filing a bond approved by the clerk; as the taking an appeal from the judgment of a justice is done by filing a bond with the justice, approved by him, or with the clerk of the court, approved by him.\nNo prayer for an appeal is to be addressed to anybody, and nobody can fix any conditions for the appeal.\nIf we consider these appeals on the merits, we must, to be consistent, consider all appeals from such orders supposed to be taken at any time, in any manner, and brought here by consent of parties, without any regard to the provisions of the statute, and thus hold that the parties may confer upon this court jurisdiction forever to review and re v\u00e9rse orders of lower courts, in cases in which the constitution and laws of the State have not conferred such jurisdiction.\nThe appeals are all dismissed at the costs of the appellants, respectively.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stirlen & King, attorneys for appellants in the first five cases.",
      "Samuel S. Page and William E. Church, attorneys for appellants in the sixth case.",
      "No appearance for appellees in the first five cases.",
      "Dale & Francis and Poole & Brown, attorneys for appellee, Taylor E. Brown, of counsel, in the sixth case."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John F. Alles Plumbing Co. v. Joseph W. Alles. John F. Alles v. Same. Edward B. McKey v. Same. Warwick A. Shaw v. Same. Peter W. Anderson v. Henning Ohlssen and Anna Ohlssen. Shea, Smith & Company (a corporation) v. Felix Tramblay.\n1. Appeals\u2014Can be Taken Only in Compliance with Statute.\u2014 Appeals are purely and only of statutory creation; and can be taken only in compliance with statutory conditions.\n2. Same\u2014Sow Taken. \u2014An appeal is accomplished only by filing the bond.\n8. Same\u2014Agreement of Parties Will Not Confer Jurisdiction of.\u2014 A court of appeal can not acquire jurisdiction over the records of inferior courts by agreement of parties.\n4. Same\u2014Prom Interlocutory Orders\u2014Sow Taken.\u2014In order to perfect the appeals from interlocutory orders allowed by statute, the bond must be filed within thirty days after the entry of the order appealed from, and must also be approved by the clerk. The statute does not contemplate that the court entering the order shall have anything to do with the appeal.\nBills in Chancery.\u2014Interlocutory orders. Appeals from Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding in the first, second, third, fourth and sixth cases. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the IJon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge, presiding in the fifth case.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAppeals dismissed.\nOpinion filed November 5, 1896.\nStirlen & King, attorneys for appellants in the first five cases.\nSamuel S. Page and William E. Church, attorneys for appellants in the sixth case.\nNo appearance for appellees in the first five cases.\nDale & Francis and Poole & Brown, attorneys for appellee, Taylor E. Brown, of counsel, in the sixth case."
  },
  "file_name": "0252-01",
  "first_page_order": 250,
  "last_page_order": 254
}
