Washington County v. Parlier, 9 Ill. 353, 4 Gilm. 353 (1847)

Dec. 1847 · Illinois Supreme Court
9 Ill. 353, 4 Gilm. 353
Washington County, appellant, v. Isaac Parlier et al., appellees

Washington County, appellant, v. Isaac Parlier et al., appellees.

Appeal f rom Washington.

Where the subject matter of a suit does not relate to a franchise or freehold, and where the judgment does not amount to twenty dollars, the remedy is by a writ of error, and not by an appeal.

Motion made by the appellant against a collector, in the Circuit Court of Washington Count)', the Hon. Gustavus P. Koerner'presiding, at the October term 1847, that he pay over the sum of tí,2398-97, due the county. The motion was disposed of by the Court, who rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant for costs. From this judgment the plaintiff appealed to this Court.

W. H, Underwood, and J. Gillespie, for the appellees.

Appeals for the removal of causes from an inferior to a superior tribunal are unknown to the Common Law, and can only be prosecuted jn cases where they are expressly given by statute. Schooner Constitution v. Woodworth, 1 Scam. 511,

The appeal in this case should be dismissed:

1. Because the judgment below was not for twenty dollars besides costs. Rev. Stat. 420, § 47;

2. Because an appeal cannot be taken by a Corporation. The said forty seventh section only applies to natural persons. County of Schuyler v. County of Mercer, ante, 20;

3. Because the appeal bond was executed more than twenty days after the order was made allowing an appeal, and no time is fixed in said order for executing the bond. It should, therefore, have been executed presently or during the term.

L. Trumbull, for the appellant, resisted the motion.

The Opinion of the Court was delivered by

Treat, J.*

The County of Washington made application *354to the Circuit Court for a judgment against the collector for failing to pay over a portion of the county revenue collected by him. The proceeding resulted in a judgment in favor of the collector for costs. From that judgment, the county prosecuted an appeal, which the appellee now moves to dismiss. The motion must be sustained. The ordinary mode of removing cases into this Court is by writ of error. The forty seventh section of the eighty third chapter of the Revised Statutes declares that, “appeals from the Circuit Courts to the Supreme Court shall be allowed in all cases where the judgment or decree appealed from be final, and shall amount, exclusive of costs, to the sum of twenty dollars, or relate to a franchise or freehold.” This provision does not embrace the present case. The subject matter of the suit does not relate to a franchise or freehold, nor does the judgment below amount to twenty dollars. The remedy of the county is by a writ of error, and not by an appeal.

Appeal dismissed.