again rule in Illinois

1979App. 3d 704 , 365 N.E.2d 949 .) Again defendant seeks to raise a constitutional issue on appeal which was not presented to the trial court for consideration, and we again must decline to consider the question.

1968Essentially this same contention was advanced in Masin v. Bassford, 381 Ill. 569 , on constitutional grounds and this court again applied the rule of the Luther case despite the absence of specific language of finality and the savings clause as to minors, incompetents and persons absent from the State.

1968People v. Marsh, 403 Ill 81, 85 NE2d 715 ; People v. Latimer, 35 Ill2d 178, 220 NE2d 214 . (3) Again defendant complains about the jury instructions, even though they have not been abstracted.

1965People v. Mason, 28 Ill2d 396, 192 NE2d 835 .

1963On this point there is unanimous agreement. . . .” In Cooper v. Hinrichs, 10 Ill2d 269, 275, 140 NE2d 293, 297 , the court said: “In adoption cases in this jurisdiction, although we have insisted upon compliance with the jurisdictional requisites, the polestar in all such cases has always been the welfare and best interests of the child.” Also see In re Petition of Kollman, 10 Ill App2d 336, 134 NE2d 629 (Abst), where the court again states the rule that the interests and welfare of the child must take precedence over all other considerations, and the court points out that the decision of the

1963On this point there is unanimous agreement. . . .” In Cooper v. Hinrichs, 10 Ill2d 269, 275, 140 NE2d 293, 297 , the court said: “In adoption cases in this jurisdiction, although we have insisted upon compliance with the jurisdictional requisites, the polestar in all such cases has always been the welfare and best interests of the child.” Also see In re Petition of Kollman, 10 Ill App2d 336, 134 NE2d 629 (Abst), where the court again states the rule that the interests and welfare of the child must take precedence over all other considerations, and the court points out that the decision of the

1916Wayne and Chicago Railway Co. 216 Ill. 575 , the court again stated the rule that where property, by reason of being applied to a particular use, has a special value to the owner, that value is to be ascertained and allowed as compensation; and in Freiberg v. South Side Elevated Railroad Co. 221 Ill. 508 , the same doctrine was applied.

1916Wayne and Chicago Railway Co. 216 Ill. 575 , the court again stated the rule that where property, by reason of being applied to a particular use, has a special value to the owner, that value is to be ascertained and allowed as compensation; and in Freiberg v. South Side Elevated Railroad Co. 221 Ill. 508 , the same doctrine was applied.

1897In Thornton v. Roll, 118 Ill. 350 , it was said, quoting from Wood on Nuisance, Sec. 788 : “ But to entitle a party to relief in such cases a very strong case must be made by the bill and sustained by the proof— as if on coming in of the answer the fact of contemplated nuisance is fully denied, or if upon the facts there is a reasonable doubt of the effect of the proposed erection the injunction will be denied until the question of nuisance is determined by the actual use of the property.” In Hotz v. Hoyt, 135 Ill. 388 , the court again state the rule as thus announced and support it by author

1897In Thornton v. Roll, 118 Ill. 350 , it was said, quoting from Wood on Nuisance, Sec. 788 : “ But to entitle a party to relief in such cases a very strong case must be made by the bill and sustained by the proof— as if on coming in of the answer the fact of contemplated nuisance is fully denied, or if upon the facts there is a reasonable doubt of the effect of the proposed erection the injunction will be denied until the question of nuisance is determined by the actual use of the property.” In Hotz v. Hoyt, 135 Ill. 388 , the court again state the rule as thus announced and support it by author