has followed doctrine in Illinois

1994Ed. 2d 769, 785 , 101 S. Ct. 1584, 1596 .) This court has followed this principle.

1994People v. Wegielnik (1992), 152 Ill. 2d 418, 429 ; People v. Adams (1992), 149 Ill. 2d 331, 352 ; accord Tucker v. United States Department of Commerce (7th Cir. 1992), 958 F.2d 1411 , 1413-14.

1994People v. Wegielnik (1992), 152 Ill. 2d 418, 429 ; People v. Adams (1992), 149 Ill. 2d 331, 352 ; accord Tucker v. United States Department of Commerce (7th Cir. 1992), 958 F.2d 1411 , 1413-14.

1988App. 3d 1038 , 291 N.E.2d 229 , indicates the court has followed that test and that theory.

1968An exception to this rule is found in those cases where the state uses its power of municipal boundaries to circumvent a Federally protected right, such as the gerrymandering of voting districts so as to discriminate against negro voters, as was the case in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 US 339 , 5 L Ed2d 110, 81 S Ct 125 (1960).

1968An exception to this rule is found in those cases where the state uses its power of municipal boundaries to circumvent a Federally protected right, such as the gerrymandering of voting districts so as to discriminate against negro voters, as was the case in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 US 339 , 5 L Ed2d 110, 81 S Ct 125 (1960).

1968Although the inhabitants and property owners may, by such changes, suffer inconvenience, and their property may be lessened in value by the burden of increased taxation, or for any other reason, they have no right, by contract or otherwise, in the unaltered or continued existence of the corporation or its powers, and there is nothing in the Federal Constitution which protects them from these injurious consequences.” The court has followed this doctrine in many cases, among them Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533, 575 , 12 L Ed 2d 506 , 84 S Ct 1362 (1964).

1968Although the inhabitants and property owners may, by such changes, suffer inconvenience, and their property may be lessened in value by the burden of increased taxation, or for any other reason, they have no right, by contract or otherwise, in the unaltered or continued existence of the corporation or its powers, and there is nothing in the Federal Constitution which protects them from these injurious consequences.” The court has followed this doctrine in many cases, among them Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533, 575 , 12 L Ed 2d 506 , 84 S Ct 1362 (1964).

1923(Village of Lee v. Harris, 206 Ill. 428 ; Domestic Building Ass’n v. Nelson, 172 id. 386.) In some of the States having statutes similar to ours on procedure and practice the courts have followed the foregoing rule.

1923L. 236; People v. Boykin, 298 Ill. 11 .) This court has followed the rule both in law and in chancery cases, that where a judgment or a decree appealed from consists of distinct and independent matters, so that an erroneous portion thereof may be segregated from the parts that are correct, the court will not set aside the entire judgment.

1921(Poppers v. Meagher, 148 Ill. 192 ; Hennessy v. Metzger, 152 id. 505; Parker-Washington Co. v. City of Chicago, 267 id. 136.) On the other hand, although the damages fixed by the contract may be referred to as liquidated damages, if the provision is in the nature of a penalty and inserted in terrorem to insure the prompt payment of the sum agreed, the damages fixed are to be regarded as a penalty and not as liquidated damages; and in such case the damages usually fixed are a gross sum, and are so manifestly excessive as to clearly appear on the face of the contract to be intended as a penalty