From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peterson v. Gwin

Supreme Court of Illinois
Sep 24, 1959
161 N.E.2d 123 (Ill. 1959)

Summary

In Peterson v. Gwin, 17 Ill.2d 261, 161 N.E.2d 123, the Supreme Court dismissed as premature an appeal from a denial to file a counterclaim before the remainder of the case had been disposed of on the merits.

Summary of this case from Standard Bank Trust Co. v. Cooper

Opinion

No. 35184. Appeal dismissed.

Opinion filed September 24, 1959.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of McHenry County; the Hon. WILLIAM M. CARROLL, Judge, presiding.

KARL A. KOCH, of Woodstock, for appellant.

ECKERT, CALDWELL GLEASON, of Woodstock, for appellee.


By the original complaint in this case the plaintiff, Ruth Peterson, sought to eject the defendant, Rita Gwin, from certain property in McHenry County. An amendment to the complaint added a claim for funds alleged to have been misappropriated from the joint bank account of the parties. Defendant's answer alleged that under a trust agreement between the parties she was entitled to the beneficial ownership of an undivided one-half interest in the property. Defendant also filed a counterclaim, count 2 of which charged that the plaintiff held certain other property as trustee for the defendant under a constructive trust. This counterclaim was twice amended. The defendant appeals from orders which dismissed count 2 of the second amended counterclaim for failure to state a cause of action and denied the defendant's application for leave to file a third amended counterclaim.

The plaintiff contends that this appeal is premature and the contention is correct. It is a basic tenet of our procedural system that only final judgments, decrees or orders are appealable. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1957, chap. 110, par. 77.) The statutory exceptions by which certain specified interlocutory orders may be reviewed are not here pertinent. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1957, chap. 110, par. 78.) Even if the order denying leave to file a further pleading should be regarded as importing finality to the order dismissing count 2 of the counterclaim, there are multiple claims for relief in this action and obviously all of them are not disposed of by the orders sought to be reviewed. In this situation a final order disposing of less than all of the claims is reviewable "only upon an express finding that there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal." (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1957, chap. 110, par. 50(2); Bohannon v. Ryerson and Sons, Inc. 15 Ill.2d 470; Ariola v. Nigro, 13 Ill.2d 200.) There is no such finding by the trial court in this record.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Peterson v. Gwin

Supreme Court of Illinois
Sep 24, 1959
161 N.E.2d 123 (Ill. 1959)

In Peterson v. Gwin, 17 Ill.2d 261, 161 N.E.2d 123, the Supreme Court dismissed as premature an appeal from a denial to file a counterclaim before the remainder of the case had been disposed of on the merits.

Summary of this case from Standard Bank Trust Co. v. Cooper

In Peterson v. Gwin, 17 Ill.2d 261, 161 N.E.2d 123, an original complaint for ejectment was filed, and an amendment to the complaint added a claim for funds alleged to have been misappropriated from the joint bank account of the parties.

Summary of this case from Federal Savings Loan Ins. Corp. v. Quinn

In Peterson v. Gwin, 17 Ill.2d 261, 161 N.E.2d 123, the defendant appealed from orders dismissing count two of the second amended counterclaim for failure to state a cause of action and denying the defendant's application for leave to file a third amended counterclaim. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that there were multiple claims for relief in the action and the order did not contain the required express finding prescribed in section 50(2).

Summary of this case from American Sav. Acctg. Supply v. Steinhauer
Case details for

Peterson v. Gwin

Case Details

Full title:RUTH PETERSON, Appellee, vs. RITA GWIN, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Illinois

Date published: Sep 24, 1959

Citations

161 N.E.2d 123 (Ill. 1959)
161 N.E.2d 123

Citing Cases

Standard Bank Trust Co. v. Cooper

There was no such finding in the instant case and it is therefore not barred and is now reviewable as a part…

Neukranz v. Neukranz

The plain meaning of the statement that the court was making "no ruling" is that the court was not deciding…