Savio v. Vieno, 203 Ill. App. 631. tion ineffective, but the notes there show that in numerous English cases it is held that the dissolution does not follow as a matter of course on the making of the amendment. We discussed this question in Savio v. Vieno, supra, and held that amendments which only enlarge and strengthen the allegation of the bill do not affect the force of the injunction. In Selden v. Vermilya, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 573, it was held that in New York, "an injunction does not drop on amending the bill, although the order granting leave may be silent on that subject." Based upon this and other authorities, 2 High on Injunctions (4th Ed.), sec. 1594, states the following as the law on this subject: "The prevailing doctrine now is that whenever, pending an injunction, an amendment is allowed to the bill, it is without prejudice to the injunction, which still stands, although the order granting leave to amend is silent as to its effect upon the injunction." In the present case, the bill was evidently hastily prepared, and its allegations were general, and the amended and supplemental bill and the subsequent amendments were for the purpose of setting out the laws of the order in detail, and showing in detail wherein the action of the meeting of November 24, 1913, was unlawful under the laws of the order, and not binding upon the complainants and the members who did not secede from the Foresters of America. Additional verification of the bill was made, but, in the former case before us, we held that the original verification was not defective, but was sufficient. We are of opinion that amendments which do not change the character of the case, but only enlarge the allegations of the bill and support the case already made, do not work a dissolution of the injunction, even though leave of court was not obtained to make the amendment without prejudice to the injunction, and that even if defendants could have had the injunction dissolved because of the amendments made without Savio v. Vieno, 203 Ill. App. 631. an order that they be without prejudice to the injunction (a defect which the complainants could then have cured), the defendants should have moved to dissolve the injunction instead of violating it. Appellants suggest doubt whether they have appealed to the right court, and cite cases where the Supreme Court has taken jurisdiction of contempt proceedings appealed from the trial court to that court. In most of the cases above cited by us as to the duty to obey an injunction, the appeals were to the Appellate Court and thence to the Supreme Court without question. There were like appeals in People v. Diedrich, 141 Ill. 565, and Leopold v. People, 140 Ill. 552, and in many other cases. Schmidt v. Cooper, 274 Ill. 243, is a recent contempt case which passed through the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court without question. The proceeding is civil or remedial and is between the parties to the litigation. We conclude we have jurisdiction to decide the cause. Several other minor points discussed by appellants have received our consideration and are overruled by us, and we think it unnecessary to discuss them. Some questions involved in this record were discussed by us in Rubendall v. Tarbox, 200 Ill. App. 260. The order appealed from in certain parts uses the words "from the date hereof," and thereby seems to restrict the imprisonment to begin on that precise date, regardless of the delay caused by this appeal. Other parts of the order are not so restricted. To avoid future dispute as to the meaning of the order, we modify said order by striking out of it the words "from the date hereof" wherever they appear, following the course pursued in Harris v. Harris, 156 Ill. App. 336. The judgment as so modified is affirmed at the costs of appellants. Affirmed. TOPICAL INDEX, VOL. 203, ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL. Abatement-when of action for personal injuries does not occur. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. Claim-when for an unliquidated amount is proper subject of. Contract for furnishing building material—when is subject of as to p. 421. Settlement-when third person is bound by. p. 117. ACCOUNT STATED. Evidence-when sufficient to show. p. 317. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Attorney-when may not take. pp. 279, 281. Entry of certificate-when presumed that proper is made in record Fatal omission-what does not constitute in by justice of peace. ADJOINING LANDOWNERS. Instruction—when in action for damages for injury resulting from Lateral support-when doctrine of is inapplicable. p. 39. APPEALS AND ERRORS. Abstract-how construed. p. 292. what are requisites of. p. 278. what does not constitute. p. 206. what is effect of failure to file proper. pp. 292, 293. Admission of evidence—when error in may not be complained of. p. 49. Bill of exceptions—what must be preserved in. p. 213. when exceptions to ruling of court must be preserved in. when sufficient. p. 259. Certificate of evidence-what does not constitute. p. 228. Certificate of reporter—what is effect of that record contains all of Confession of errors-when by corporation not ground for reversal Cross errors-when must be assigned. p. 194. Decree-when will not be changed so as to increase liability. Defense of statute of limitations-when may not be raised. p. 445. Final order-what is. p. 300. Finding of jury-when based on conflicting evidence will not be Findings of master-when may not be objected to on appeal. p. 25. Harmless error-when admission of improper evidence on damages when defective instructions not reversibly erroneous. p. 49. when giving of inaccurate instructions on damages is. when giving unnecessary instruction is. p. 79. p. 283. p. 213. Improper remarks of counsel when not ground for reversal. Instructions-when not reversibly erroneous. p. 276. p. 338. when objection as to insufficiency is too late. p. 1. Judgment-power of Appellate Court to render final. when affirmed. pp. 206, 278. p. 457. when affirmed for insufficiency of abstract. p. 305. |