{ "id": 3345727, "name": "Lora Groszglass v. Herman VonBergen, Admr.", "name_abbreviation": "Groszglass v. VonBergen", "decision_date": "1906-02-21", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "340", "last_page": "343", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "220 Ill. 340" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "158 Ill. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 6045801 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/158/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 Ill. App. 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5189136 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/66/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5441380 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/137/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ill. App. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5111834 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/51/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 Ill. 623", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3180596 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/170/0623-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 Ill. App. 265", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "175 Ill. 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3161360 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/175/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 Ill. 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3130989 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/159/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 Ill. 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3127970 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/160/0629-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 Ill. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5421490 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/132/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 Ill. 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5805985 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/140/0536-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 Ill. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5470398 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/150/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ill. App. 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5115145 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/51/0222-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 Ill. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 6045801 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/158/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5441380 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/137/0146-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 332, "char_count": 6392, "ocr_confidence": 0.772, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1224046843746412e-07, "percentile": 0.5737747644746856 }, "sha256": "337f55adf678116d152756f73875bcb3ec576e821b859ae3ec7d8b08f5f85e9a", "simhash": "1:c6bc8ab7f458c7d6", "word_count": 1135 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:19:12.359650+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Lora Groszglass v. Herman VonBergen, Admr." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Hand\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Court for the First District affirming an order of the circuit court of Cook county dismissing an appeal 'to said circuit court from a judgment of the county court of said county declining to discharge Lora Groszglass from imprisonment on a capias ad satisfaciendum issued by the superior court of Cook county in favor of Barbara VonBergen, under the Insolvent Debtors act.\nThe only question arising upon this record for decision is, does an appeal from an order of the county court declining to discharge an insolvent debtor under the Insolvent Debtors act lie to the circuit or to the Appellate Court? At the time the Insolvent Debtors act was passed there was no Appellate Court in existence in this State, and section 26 of that act expressly provided for an appeal to the circuit court. Subsequently the Appellate Court was created, and section 8 of the act creating said court provided for appeals to that court from all final judgments, orders or decrees of the county 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. The question here involved is therefore narrowed to the question whether or not section 26 of the Insolvent Debtors act is repealed, by implication, by section 8 of the Appellate Court act.\nThe uniform holdings of the Appellate Court (Huntington v. Metzger, 51 Ill. App. 222; In re Harmanek, 66 id. 593; In re Busse, 80 id. 261; First Nat. Bank v. Sanford, 83 id. 58;) have been that said section 26 was repealed by said section 8, and that an appeal should be taken to the Appellate Court, and not to the circuit court, from orders granting or refusing an insolvent a discharge from imprisonment under said act. In Union Trust Co. v. Trumbull, 137 Ill. 146, a contest over the distribution of an insolvent\u2019s estate in the hands of an assignee under the Voluntary Assignment act was held to be a chancery proceeding modified and regulated by statute, and that an appeal from the order of the county court in such proceedings was properly taken to the Appellate Court. To the same effect is Heinzelman Bros. v. Schrader, 150 Ill. 227, Levy v. Chicago Nat. Bank, 158 id. 88, and McCune v. American Screw Co. 170 id. 622. And in Lee v. People, 140 Ill. 536, it was held that while a proceeding under the Bastardy act was not a suit at law it was \"clearly \u201ca proceeding at law,\u201d and that an appeal from the judgment of the county court in such proceeding should be taken to the Appellate Court, and not to the circuit court. A number of cases have been disposed of in this court similar to the case at bar, where the appeal was taken from the county court to the Appellate Court, (Huntington v. Metzger, 158 Ill. 272; Jernberg v. Mix, 199 id. 254;) while other cases (Kitson v. Farwell, 132 Ill. 327; Sawyer v. Nelson, 160 id. 629;) have been disposed of where the appeal was taken from the county court to the circuit court. The question here raised was not, however, considered in any of those cases.\nAlthough the question is not free from doubt, we are inclined to agree with the view adopted by the Appellate Court. An application for a discharge of an insolvent debtor under the Insolvent Debtors act is not a suit at law. It grows out, however, of a suit at law and may be said to be a proceeding at law, and is no more a.statutory proceeding than a proceeding under the Voluntary Assignment act for the allowance of a claim or the distribution of an insolvent\u2019s estate, or than is a proceeding under the Bastardy act. The appeal having been improvidently taken to the circuit court, was properly dismissed.\nThe judgment of the Appellate Court will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Hand" } ], "attorneys": [ "Burres & McKinley, and Elijah N. Zoline, for appellant:", "J. H. Perkinson, for appellee:" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Lora Groszglass v. Herman VonBergen, Admr.\nOpinion filed February 21, 1906\nRehearing denied April 5, 1906.\nAppeals and errors\u2014appeal from order refusing to discharge insolvent debtor lies to Appellate Court. Section 26 of the Insolvent Debtors act, authorizing an appeal to the circuit court from an order of the county court granting or denying an application for the discharge of an insolvent debtor, was repealed, by implication, by section 8 of the Appellate Court act, and an appeal from such an order should be taken to the Appellate Court.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;\u2014 heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. F. A. Smith, Judge, presiding.\nBurres & McKinley, and Elijah N. Zoline, for appellant:\nThe statute contemplates a trial de novo in the circuit court. Rev. Stat. chap. 72, secs. 27, 28; Sawyer v. Nelson, 160 Ill. 629; Kitson v. Farwell, 132 id. 327.\nProceedings in the county court for the discharge from imprisonment for debt are purely statutory, and the statute must be strictly followed. It is neither a suit at law nor in chancery, and written pleadings are not required. Grier v. Cable, 159 Ill. 29; Martin v. Martin, 170 id. 18; Insolvent Debtors act, secs. 1-5; chap. 72, sec. 26.\nBy filing objections to the merits of the case the question of jurisdiction was waived. Grier v. Cable, 159 Ill. 29.\nSections 27 and 28, in so far as they relate to appeals of debtors from imprisonment for debt, were not repealed by section 8 of the Appellate Court act. Repeals by implication are not favored in law. Lippman v. People, 175 Ill. 101.\nJ. H. Perkinson, for appellee:\nSection 8 of the Appellate Court act provides that appeals or writs of error from the final judgments, orders or decrees of the county courts in any suits or proceedings at law or in chancery lie to the Appellate Court. Starr & Cur. Stat. chap. 37, par. 28; In re Busse, 80 Ill. App. 265.\nAppeals in matters of voluntary assignment lie direct to the Appellate Court, and not to the circuit court. McCune v. Screw Co. 170 Ill. 623; Columbia Light Co. v. Bunker, 51 Ill. App. 258.\nErom the findings of the county court in insolvency proceedings appeals go to the Appellate Court. Trust Co. v. Trumbull, 137 Ill. 146; Lumber Co. v. Bank, 159 id. 458; Levy v. Bank, 158 id. 103.\nAn appeal to the circuit court does not lie from an order of discharge from arrest on a ca. sa. entered in the county court. Harmenek v. Guthman, 66 Ill. App. 593; Bank v. Sanford, 83 id. 58; Huntington v. Metzger, 158 Ill. 272." }, "file_name": "0340-01", "first_page_order": 340, "last_page_order": 343 }