The order granting a new trial in this case, is not a final judgment. Hence, no appeal can be taken or writ of error prosecuted for its reversal. The writ of error must therefore be dismissed.
Writ of error dismissed.
Williams v. La Valle, 64 Ill. 110 (1872)
June 1872
·
Illinois Supreme Court
64 Ill. 110
James Williams et al. v. Francis La Valle, Supervisor, etc.
•TraDGirENT—whether final—orü&r granting a new trial. An order granting a new trial in an action of ejectment, under the statute, is not a final judgment, and, therefore, can not he reviewed in the supreme court upon appeal or writ of error.
Writ op Error to the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. Joseph Gillespie, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of ejectment, brought in the court below ■by LaYalle, supervisor of the village of Cahokia, against James Williams and Francis H. Cobb.
At the March term, 1868, a trial ivas had, resulting in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendants prayed an appeal. At the October term following, the judgment was vacated and a new trial granted upon payment of costs, the defendants withdrawing their appeal.
At the October term, 1870, a second trial ivas had, resulting in a judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff thereupon moved for a new trial, which the court, at the March term,_ 1871, denied. The plaintiff then moved for a new trial under the statute, which ivas allowed upon the payment of costs within one year. Upon this application of the plaintiff it Avas proven that he had paid the costs of the second trial, but had not paid the costs of the first trial.
At the October term, 1871, the plaintiff dismissed his suit.
The defendants sued out a Avrit of error, and insist the court beloAV erred in granting to the plaintiff a neAV trial Avithout the payment of all the costs incurred in the suit.
Messrs. C. W. & E. L. Thomas, for the plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. G. & G. A. K cerner, for the defendant in error.