Case ID: ill-app_197/html/0358-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Baker", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of Illinois for use of the State Board of Health, Defendant in Error, v. John Brod, Sr., Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,478.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Newcomer, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed January 13, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action of debt by the People of the State of Illinois for the use of the State Board of Health against John Brod, Sr., to recover the penalty for practicing medicine without a license from the State Board of Health, imposed by section 9 of the Act entitled “An Act to Regulate the Practice of Medicine in the State of Illinois and to Repeal an Act therein named,” in force July 1, 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 273, J. & A. 7377.) To reverse a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes this writ of error. ' The statement of claim alleges a former conviction for the same offense, and because thereof claims the penalty of two hundred dollars.
    The appeal was taken in the first instance to the Supreme Court and that court, holding that no constitutional question was involved, transferred the case to the Appellate Court.
    Defendant contends that if the act is valid, it does not apply to him because he was practicing medicine when the act took effect;
    Edwin H. Cassels and Kenneth B. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.
    Thomas S. Hogan, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Courts, § 150 —when ruling on appeal to Supreme Court law of the case in transferred, cause. Where on an appeal to the Supreme Court in the first instance in an action to recover a statutory penalty, that court holds that no constitutional question is involved and transfers the cause to the Appellate Court, such decision disposes of the question of the constitutionality of the act under which the proceeding is brought.

2. Physicians and surgeons, § 5 —when licensing act applicable to practicing physicians. Laws 1899, p. 273 (J. & A. If 7377), regulating the practice of medicine, is applicable to physicians practicing when the act took effect.

3. Penalties, § 16 —when judgment imposing imprisonment until payment of penalty valid. A judgment in an action to recover for the violation of a penal law may provide, for defendant’s imprisonment until the payment of the judgment and costs.