point assigned error in Illinois

1951(Wainwright v. McDonough, 364 Ill. 626 ; Hajicek v. Goldsby, 309 Ill. 372 .) When it appears that this court is without jurisdiction, it is our duty to decline to proceed in the cause.

1950(Hajicek v. Goldsby, 309 Ill. 372 .)” In Schrader v. Schrader, 357 Ill. 623 , we said: “The fact that a freehold has been involved in a suit does not determine the question of jurisdiction upon appeal.

1951(Classen v. Ripley, 407 Ill. 350 ; Carney v. Quinn, 358 Ill. 446 ; Fread v. Fread, 165 Ill. 228 .) If a freehold is involved in the original judgment or decree but not in the point assigned for error, the appeal should be taken to the Appellate Court.

1936Carney v. Quinn, 358 Ill. 446 ; McGrath v. Dunne, 363 id. 549 ; Hajicek v. Goldsby, 309 id. 372.

1952In Dombroski v. Vallely, 409 Ill. 596, 599 , the court said: “If a freehold is involved in the original judgment or decree, but not in the point assigned for error, the appeal should be taken to the Appellate Court.” Is a freehold involved in the instant case 1 The original complaint filed by plaintiff as co-trustee sought instruction and direction from the court as to the right and duty of the plaintiff or his co-trustee, the bank, to take an appeal from the decree entered in the second action brought by plaintiff, referred to in the main opinion.

1951(Lakin v. Wood, 406 Ill. 595 ; Kurzawski v. Malaga, 402 Ill. 207 ; Rawlins v. Bogusiewicz, 397 Ill. 548 .) Appellant has abandoned his sole ground for a direct appeal, leaving only procedural questions.

1951(Lakin v. Wood, 406 Ill. 595 ; Kurzawski v. Malaga, 402 Ill. 207 ; Rawlins v. Bogusiewicz, 397 Ill. 548 .) Appellant has abandoned his sole ground for a direct appeal, leaving only procedural questions.

1951(Wainwright v. McDonough, 364 Ill. 626 ; Hajicek v. Goldsby, 309 Ill. 372 .) When it appears that this court is without jurisdiction, it is our duty to decline to proceed in the cause.

1951(Lakin v. Wood, 406 Ill. 595 ; Kurzawski v. Malaga, 402 Ill. 207 ; Rawlins v. Bogusiewicz, 397 Ill. 548 .) Appellant has abandoned his sole ground for a direct appeal, leaving only procedural questions.

1951(Classen v. Ripley, 407 Ill. 350 ; Carney v. Quinn, 358 Ill. 446 ; Fread v. Fread, 165 Ill. 228 .) If a freehold is involved in the original judgment or decree but not in the point assigned for error, the appeal should be taken to the Appellate Court.

1951(Classen v. Ripley, 407 Ill. 350 ; Carney v. Quinn, 358 Ill. 446 ; Fread v. Fread, 165 Ill. 228 .) If a freehold is involved in the original judgment or decree but not in the point assigned for error, the appeal should be taken to the Appellate Court.

1950(Hajicek v. Goldsby, 309 Ill. 372 .)” In Schrader v. Schrader, 357 Ill. 623 , we said: “The fact that a freehold has been involved in a suit does not determine the question of jurisdiction upon appeal.

1936(McGrath v. Dunne, 363 Ill. 549 ; Carney v. Quinn, 358 id. 446; Schrader v. Schrader, 357 id. 623; Wylie v. O’Connor, 363 id. 615.) When it appears that this court is without jurisdiction it is our duty to decline to proceed in the cause.

1934(Miller v. Kensil, 223 Ill. 201 ; People v. Rodenberg, 259 id. 78; Coal Creek Drainage District v. Sanitary District, 328 id. 360.) If a freehold is involved in the original judgment or decree but not in the point assigned for error, the appeal should be taken to the Appellate Court.

1927(Hajicek v. Goldsby, 309 Ill. 372 ; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 277 id. 191; Lewis v. Lewis, supra; Crowley v. McCambridge, 237 Ill. 222 ; Miller v. Kensil, 223 id. 201; Douglas Park Building Ass’n v. Roberts, 218 id. 454; Prouty v. Moss, 188 id. 84; City of Roodhouse v. Briggs, 194 id. 435; Rhodes v. Rhodes, 172 id. 187; Fread v. Fread, 165 id. 228; Fields v. Coker, 161 id. 186; Franklin v. Loan and Investment Co. 152 id. 345.) The mere fact that an appeal is from a judgment in a suit brought against the sanitary district for damages to land, even though one of the material allegations of the declara

1927(Hajicek v. Goldsby, 309 Ill. 372 ; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 277 id. 191; Lewis v. Lewis, supra; Crowley v. McCambridge, 237 Ill. 222 ; Miller v. Kensil, 223 id. 201; Douglas Park Building Ass’n v. Roberts, 218 id. 454; Prouty v. Moss, 188 id. 84; City of Roodhouse v. Briggs, 194 id. 435; Rhodes v. Rhodes, 172 id. 187; Fread v. Fread, 165 id. 228; Fields v. Coker, 161 id. 186; Franklin v. Loan and Investment Co. 152 id. 345.) The mere fact that an appeal is from a judgment in a suit brought against the sanitary district for damages to land, even though one of the material allegations of the declara

1927(People v. Powers, 283 Ill. 438 ; People v. Reed, id. 606; People v. Akers, 327 id. 137.) If a freehold is involved in the original judgment or decree but not in the point assigned for error the appeal should be taken to the Appellate-Court.

1917Prouty v. Moss, 188 Ill. 84 ; Rhodes v. Rhodes, 172 id. 187 .

1917Prouty v. Moss, 188 Ill. 84 ; Rhodes v. Rhodes, 172 id. 187 .

1917(Becker v. Pink, 273 Ill. 560 .) No question of freehold is therefore involved in the point assigned for error.

1906(Malaer v. Hudgens, 130 Ill. 225 .) Where a freehold is involved in the original decree but is not the point assigned for error, the appeal should be to the Appellate Court.

1906(Walker v. Pritchard, 121 Ill. 221 ; Prouty v. Moss, 188 id. 84.) It does not appear from the points assigned as for error and argued in the briefs of counsel for the appellant that a freehold is involved, and the appeal must therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, at the cost of the appellant.