delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an appeal taken directly to this court by the New Illinois Athletic Club of Chicago from a judgment for $194,600 recovered against it in the circuit court of Cook county by Elizabeth Jane Genslinger, as executrix of the will of Charles H. Genslinger, in an action on the case for the alleged conversion of 973 certificates of membership in the appellant. The appeal was takеn to this court on the ground that questions of construction of sections n and 12 of article 6, section 22 of article 4 and section 29 of article 6 of the constitution are involved. A brief statemеnt of facts is necessary to show how these questions of constitutional construction are supposed to arise.
The cause of action which is the basis of the judgment grew out of the trаnsactions of the defendant and Charles H. Genslinger in his lifetime. The appellant, a corporation not for pecuniary profit, was incorporated on November 11, 1904, its object bеing the encouragement of physical culture and manly sports and the promotion of social intercourse among its members. Genslinger was one of the original incorporators аnd promoters of the club. He was its first secretary and continued to be a life member until his death, on September 15, 1920. He participated actively in its organization, securing members, the purchase of a site for the club building and its erection, in pursuance of a contract with the club. He afterward brought a suit against the appellant in the municipal court of Chicago for the sum of $200,000. The appellant filed a bill to restrain him from prosecuting the suit and praying for an accounting. Genslinger filed an answer to the bill and a cross-bill praying for an accounting against the аppellant. Upon a hearing a decree was rendered granting a part of the relief prayed for by the complainant and dismissing Genslinger’s cross-bill for want of equity. Genslinger appеaled to the Appellate Court, where the decree was reversed and the cause remanded to the circuit court, with directions to dismiss the bill for want of equity, to enter a decrеe in favor of Genslinger for $23,683.52, and to decree that the club be directed to issue to him 1000 certificates of membership in the club. Upon the reinstatement of the cause in the circuit cоurt that court entered its decree in conformity with the mandate of the Appellate Court. The club issued these certificates as directed by the decree, and it is for the conversion of these certificates, except twenty-seven which Genslinger had sold, that the present suit was prosecuted.
The decree so entered was offered in evidence on the trial, and it is contended that the judgment of the Appellate Court was void because that court was without jurisdiction to decide the facts upon the evidence contrary to the finding of the circuit court and direct the circuit court what decree it should enter, and that thereby the appellant was deprived of its property without due process of law. The Appellаte Court had jurisdiction of the appeal and the parties. If it had jurisdiction to enter the order its judgment was competent evidence in this case, and by its use the appellant could not have been deprived of its property without due process of law. If the Appellate Court did not have jurisdiction to enter the order its judgment was void and of no binding effect on the parties and its admission in evidence was merely an error in the progress of the trial. The trial of the cause was conducted according to the legal and usual method of procedure in actions on the case, and the judgment rendered by the court on such a trial is the result of due process of law, however erroneous or unjust the decision may be, if the trial court had jurisdiсtion' to enter the judgment which it did enter. The constitutional requirement of due process of law is not a guaranty that the courts shall not commit error in the trial of causes or a guaranty agаinst erroneous and unjust decisions by courts which have jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. If errors are committed or erroneous and unjust decisions are rendered they may be сorrected in the manner provided by law for the correction of such errors, but mere error in a judgment or decree does not deprive the losing party of the benefit of due process of law. (Tarallo v. Hubbell Fertilizer Co.
The conversion of the certificates complained of was claimed to have occurred on June 24, 1919, and the action which is the subject of review was begun on September 24, 1921, — mоre than a year after Genslinger’s death. Section 19 of the general Statute of Limitations provides: “If a person entitled to bring an action die before the expiration of the time limitеd for the commencement thereof, and the cause of action survives, an action may be commenced by his representatives after the expiration of that time, and within onе year from his death. If a person against whom an action may be brought die before the expiration of the time limited for the commencement thereof, and the cause of action survives, an action may be commenced against his executors or administrators after the expiration of that time, and within one year after the issuing of letters testamentary or of аdministration.” Section 15 of the same act provides that actions to recover the possession of personal property or damages for the detention or conversiоn thereof shall be commenced within five years next after the cause of action accrued. This period had not elapsed when the present action was brought, and therefоre section 19 has no application to this case. At common law, actions of iort did not survive to the executor, but by 3 Edw. Ill, chap. 7, it was enacted that actions of trespass for injuries to personal property should survive and executors might recover damages for such injuries; and this act, being prior in date to the fourth year of the reign of James I, became the lаw of this State under the statute adopting the common law and certain statutes of the British parliament. (Bunker v. Green,
We express no opinion whether the certificates in question were or were not personal prоperty.
Since these two supposed constitutional questions constitute the only basis claimed to give the right of direct appeal to this court, and since they do not affect the сase, this court is without jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Under the statute the appeal should have been taken to the Appellate Court for the First District, and the cause is transferred to that court.
, Lause transferred.
Mr. Chief Justice DeYoung took no part in the decision of this case.