position of plaintiff error in Illinois

1931Co. v. Chamber of Commerce did not really involve the question here under discussion, for the appeal in that case brought up for review nothing- but the decision of the trial court in denying the motion to vacate the judgment, and that case has been overruled in the subsequent cases of Hibbard v. Mueller, 86 Ill. 256 , and Hearson v. Graudine, 87 id. 115.

1909Co. v. Chamber of Commerce did not really involve the question here under discussion, for the appeal in that case brought up for review nothing but the decision of the trial court in denying the motion to vacate the judgment, and that case has been overruled in the subsequent cases of Hibbard v. Mueller, 86 Ill. 256 , and Hearson v. Graudine, 87 id. 115.

1927One of the cases cited, Griffin v. Knisely, 75 Ill. 411 , is certainly adverse to the position of plaintiff in error, that the legal implication resulting from the holding over of premises may be repelled by the intent on the part of the tenant.

1881One of the cases cited, Griffin v. Knisely, 75 Ill. 411 , is certainly adverse to the position of plaintiff in error, that the legal implication resulting from the holding over of premises may be repelled by the intent on the part of the tenant.

1951The most recent decisions, People v. Harrison, 403 Ill. 320 (1949) and People v. Pomeroy, 405 Ill. 175 (1950), while dissimilar in facts, show clearly that the Supreme Court of this State considers the proper sphere of direct contempts to be that in which the judge has personal knowledge of all the substantial elements that comprise the offense.

1951The most recent decisions, People v. Harrison, 403 Ill. 320 (1949) and People v. Pomeroy, 405 Ill. 175 (1950), while dissimilar in facts, show clearly that the Supreme Court of this State considers the proper sphere of direct contempts to be that in which the judge has personal knowledge of all the substantial elements that comprise the offense.

1943It is claimed by plaintiff in error that the opinion of this court in People v. Botulinski, 383 Ill. 608 , filed on September 21, 1943, on the question of identification, bears a striking similarity to the present case.

1931In Hosking v. Southern Pacific Co., 243 Ill. 320, 327 , the court held: “It must be admitted that what is said in these cases tends to support the position of plaintiff in error, but National Ins.

1924A reading of .the opinion in the case of People v. Freese, supra, will disclose that this position of plaintiff in error is not tenable, as section 25 of the Inheritance Tax act is specifically mentioned in the opinion, and it is therein said: “We cannot agree that the entire estate should have been taxed to the life tenant, although this position of appellant seems to find support in the decision of the surrogate’s court in New York.” The inheritance tax was properly fixed by the county court, and the judgment will be affirmed.

1914Co. v. King, 3 Ill.

1910While this question is perhaps not free from doubt, yet we are disposed to hold that under Sterling Bridge Co. v. Pearl, 80 Ill. 251 , and Mayers v. Smith, 121 Ill. 442 , the court was not required to permit a peremptory challenge of a juror after he had been accepted by both parties, though the court in the exercise of a sound discretion might have done so.

1910While this question is perhaps not free from doubt, yet we are disposed to hold that under Sterling Bridge Co. v. Pearl, 80 Ill. 251 , and Mayers v. Smith, 121 Ill. 442 , the court was not required to permit a peremptory challenge of a juror after he had been accepted by both parties, though the court in the exercise of a sound discretion might have done so.

1905The leading case of this class is Paducah Lumber Co. v. Paducah Water Supply Co., 89 Ky. 340 , wherein the language of the court fully sustains the position of plaintiff in error here.

1899This position of plaintiff in error results from what has been said by this court in Board of Education v. Greenebaum S Sons, 39 Ill. 609 , where it was held that this board of education was an eleemosynary institution, founded for the purpose of the gratuitous distribution of knowledge in regard to teaching and conducting common schools, and erected not at the expense of the State but of individuals; and at the time of the opinion in that case the salaries of the instructors and other employees were fixed by the board, and no appropriation had then ever been made from the State treasury for i

1891In Union Trust Co. v. Rigdon, 93 Ill. 458 , where the question was under consideration, it was held, “that a person holding commercial paper as collateral security for a debt due, has no right, unless in a very extreme case, to compromise with the parties to the security for a less sum than is due on the security, and if "he does, he will he compelled to account to the pledgor for the face value.” These and other authorities of a kindred character have been cited to sustain the position of plaintiff in error; but a moment’s reflection will suffice to show that the law cited and relied upon can

1877We have, however, been referred to National Insurance Company v. Chamber of Commerce, 69 Ill. 22 , as an authority sustaining the position of plaintiff in error.