contention of plaintiffs error in Illinois

1964What was said in Illinois Valley Bank v. Newman, 354 Ill. 38, 39 , is controlling here: “The contention of plaintiffs in error is that the attempted service by publication was insufficient to give the court jurisdiction and that the decree entered upon such defective service will deprive plaintiffs in error of their property without due process of law.

1934The question involved herein was squarely before the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Durflinger v. Arnold, supra, and there decided adversely to the contention of plaintiffs in error.

1932It is clearly within the police power of the city to provide by ordinance *Page 113 for the regulation and prevention of the storage of coal oil, naphtha, benzine, petroleum or any of the products thereof and other combustible or explosive material. ( Klever Karpet Kleaners v. City of Chicago , 323 Ill. 368 .) The ordinance here deals with products highly inflammable and explosive in their nature.

1928Upon an examination of the cases in this State, we find that the ones sustaining the contention of plaintiffs in error are two, decided by the Appellate Court of the first district, viz., Morganroth v. Pink, 227 Ill.

1928App. 244 , and Elwell v. Hicks, 180 Ill.

1928In Metzger v. Nova Realty Co., 214 N. Y. 26 , an extension agreement was as follows: “Nothing herein contained shall impair the security now held for said debt, or any condition or agreement contained in said bond and mortgage, which bond and mortgage the party of the second part hereby ratifies and confirms as modified by this agreement.” In its opinion the court said: “We may inquire what was the situation of the parties on May 1st, 1910.

1923(Mount v. Hunter, 58 Ill. 246 ; Chapman v. Wright, 20 id. 120.) We also agree that the statute is a penal statute under the holding in Brown v. Kildea, 58 Wash. 184 , that a statute which subjects one person to the payment of a sum of money to another without reference to any actual injury and without requiring him to allege or prove an actual injury is a penal statute, and in which holding we concur.

1923(Mount v. Hunter, 58 Ill. 246 ; Chapman v. Wright, 20 id. 120.) We also agree that the statute is a penal statute under the holding in Brown v. Kildea, 58 Wash. 184 , that a statute which subjects one person to the payment of a sum of money to another without reference to any actual injury and without requiring him to allege or prove an actual injury is a penal statute, and in which holding we concur.

1919This question was raised in the case of People v. Doras, 290 Ill. 188 , and was there decided adversely to the contention of plaintiffs in error herein.

1918“I hereby empower my executors to give new mortgages upon any part of my property to renew or replace or take up any mortgage existing at the time of my death.” The contention of plaintiffs in error that under the will the legal title to the premises was placed in the executor, and that on this account the conveyances made are ineffective, was conclusively settled in the case of McCarty v. McCarty, supra. Where a testator devises a life'estate in lands and the remainder limited to take effect upon the death of the life tenant is contingent, the reversion in fee descends to the heirs-at-law pen

1914In the case of People v. Darr, 255 Ill. 456 , this court , construed the third count of this indictment and held that it contained a charge of conspiracy to obtain money from the insurance company by means of false representations and pretenses, and that it was not, as contended by plaintiff in error in that case, an indictment for burning property for the purpose of defrauding an insurance company.

1913This contention of plaintiffs in error, and also the contention that the act deprives the child of his right to personal liberty, were decided contrary to the position of plaintiffs in error in Petition of Perrier, 103 Ill. 367 , and County of McLean v. Humphreys, 104 id. 378 .

1913This contention of plaintiffs in error, and also the contention that the act deprives the child of his right to personal liberty, were decided contrary to the position of plaintiffs in error in Petition of Perrier, 103 Ill. 367 , and County of McLean v. Humphreys, 104 id. 378 .

1909In Roberts v. Hall, 37 Conn. 205 , the note was transferred to a trustee for the benefit of certain creditors of the payee and endorser, and a part of the proceeds of the note, when it should be paid, were to be applied to the liquidation of the debts of the creditors as specified, and the remainder paid to the wife of the assignor.

1907(Dowie v. Driscoll, 203 Ill. 480 ; Biggerstaff v. Biggerstaff, 180 id. 407; Baker v. Rockabrand, 118 id. 365.) The same rule must be applied to the contention of plaintiffs in error that the evidence failed to show the threats of the heirs to contest the will of James Dingman, and the rumors in the neighborhood of their intention to do so, had any influence or effect upon the price for which the land sold.

1906Earll v. People, 99 Ill. 123 ; Mayes v. People, 106 id. 306.

1904Glos v. Hoban, 212 Ill. 222 .

1901The contention of plaintiffs in error is that West had no authority to execute the Times-West note, for and in the name of the Times company, payable to himself; that his authority, as president, to execute commercial paper for the company did not authorize him to make and issue the note of the company to himself and with which to pay and take up his own obligation,—citing Dobson v. More, 164 Ill. 110 , Park Hotel Co. v. Fourth Nat.

1899This same question was before this court in the case of Holden v. City of Chicago, 172 Ill. 263 , and several subsequent cases, and the contention of plaintiffs in error was there sustained.