
    Curtis Publishing Company, Appellant, v. City of Chicago, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 22,858.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 30, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill by the Curtis Publishing Company, a corporation, complainant, against the City of Chicago, defendant, to enjoin the city and its officers from interfering- with the exhibition and sale of a certain weekly publication upon sidewalk news stands. A temporary injunction was granted and, upon demurrer, was dissolved and the bill was dismissed for want of equity. An appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on the ground that the validity or constitutionality of the city ordinances in question was not involved, and the case was transferred to the Appellate Court.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and error, § 201
      
      —when Appellate Court has no jurisdiction as to valid,iiy of ordinance. The Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to pass upon the partial validity of a city ordinance as well as the total validity thereof.
    2. Municipal corporations—when ordinance regulating use of news stands not construed so as to include all newspapers. A city ordinance providing that the commissioner of public works is authorized to permit stands to be maintained on the public streets during certain hours, which shall be used for the sale of daily newspapers printed and published in the city, should not be construed by striking out the limiting language and inserting in lieu thereof “all newspapers,” as it was clearly not the intention of the city council in adopting the ordinance to use such language.
    For the decision on the appeal to the Supreme Court, see 273 Ill. 373.
    Darrow & Sissman, for appellant.
    S. A. Ettelson, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.  