Morrison Hotel & Rest. Co. v. Kirsner
| Decision Date | 29 June 1910 |
| Citation | 245 Ill. 431,92 N.E. 285 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | MORRISON HOTEL & RESTAURANT CO. v. KIRSNER et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; John H. Hume, Judge.
Action by Morrison Hotel & Restaurant Company, against Julius Kirsner and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Court for the First District, affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded with directions.
A. G. Dicus, for appellants.
Defrees, Buckingham, Ritter & Campbell, for appellee.
On January 21, 1908, an attorney entered the appearance of the three appellants in the municipal court of the city of Chicago by virtue of a power of attorney signed by one of them for all, purporting to authorize a confession of judgment for the amount that might be due on a lease executed by appellee to appellants. The attorney confessed a judgment against appellants for $686.66, the amount alleged to be due on the lease in the declaration of appellee. The power of attorney was not sufficient to authorize the attorney to enter the appearance of all the defendants, and four days afterward they appeared and entered their motions to set aside and vacate the judgment. The court was unable to take up the motion at that time and continued it until February 8, 1908, when it was granted and the judgment was vacated. Thereupon the defendants entered their motion for a trial by jury and filed with the clerk a demand in writing for such trial, and offered and tendered to the clerk, in open court, $6 for the fees of the jury. The record recites that it appeared to the court that a demand for a jury trial was not made at the time the appearance of the defendants was filed in the case, and for that reason the motion was denied and the demand refused. The plaintiff was given leave to amend its statement of claim by increasing the ad damnum to $1,000, and leave was given the defendants to file a set-off instanter. A bill of particulars of the set-off was filed and the trial of the issues was set for a later day and continued from time to time until May 19, 1908, when the issues were tried by the court against the protest of the defendants and a renewed demand for a jury trial, and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for $333.33. The defendants appealedto the Appellate Court for the First District, and that court affirmed the judgment, but granted a certificate of importance and an appeal to this court.
The Constitution secures to the citizen the right of trial by jury, and unless he waives that right it is his privilege to have controverted questions of fact decided by a jury, and not by a judge sitting as a court. It is not a right to command the services of a jury without cost, but is of the same nature as the right to have official services performed by public officers, and a requirement for the payment of a reasonable amount for jury fees, such as will necessarily be required in every jury trial, is not a denial or encroachment upon the right. Accordingly we have held that provisions of the municipal court act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1909, c. 37, § 319), requiring a party to a suit of this class, at the time of entering his appearance, to file with the clerk a demand in writing for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kakos v. Butler, 120377.
...upholding the constitutionality of court fees for a jury trial. Id. at 144, 13 N.E.2d 179 (citing Morrison Hotel & Restaurant Co. v. Kirsner, 245 Ill. 431, 92 N.E. 285 (1910), and Williams v. Gottschalk, 231 Ill. 175, 83 N.E. 141 (1907) ). While the court did not directly rule on the issue ......
-
Greene v. City of Chicago
...and enforce the right.' " (Hudson v. Leverenz (1956), 10 Ill.2d 87, 93, 139 N.E.2d 255, 258, quoting Morrison Hotel & Restaurant Co. v. Kirsner (1910), 245 Ill. 431, 433, 92 N.E. 285.) Defendant argues that following the decision of Hudson v. Leverenz the appellate courts have applied two d......
-
People v. Spegal
...should be made at the time of filing a demand for jury.' 383 Ill. at page 132, 48 N.E.2d at page 510; see Morrison Hotel & Restaurant Co. v. Kirsner, 245 Ill. 431, 92 N.E. 285; Williams v. Gottschalk, 231 Ill. 175, 83 N.E. To construe the 1941 amendment to the Criminal Code as an encroachme......
-
Hunt v. Rosenbaum Grain Corp., 21995.
...of the right of trial by jury. Williams v. Gottschalk, 231 Ill. 175, 83 N. E. 141,12 Ann. Cas. 376;Morrison Hotel & Restaurant Co. v. Kirsner, 245 Ill. 431, 92 N. E. 285,137 Am. St. Rep. 335. Those cases arose under the Municipal Court Act, and were decided without reference to the objectio......