Williams v. Gottschalk
| Decision Date | 17 December 1907 |
| Citation | 83 N.E. 141,231 Ill. 175 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS et al. v. GOTTSCHALK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; John W. Houston, Judge.
Action by Lewis A. Williams and another against Franklin B. Gottschalk. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.Albert Wesley Gottschalk, for plaintiff in error.
Wells & Kelly, for defendants in error.
Franklin B. Gottschalk, plaintiff in error, has sued out a writ of error from this court, which was been made a supersedeas, seeking to reverse a judgment for $25 and costs rendered against him by the municipal court of Chicago for the First district in favor of Lewis A. Williams and Henry Schnoering, partners doing business as the University Publishing Society, defendants in error. The suit was originally brought before James C. Martin, a justice of the peace of the city of Chicago, on a contract of subscription for a history of the Northwestern University, signed by plaintiff in error. The summons was made returnable November 9, 1906, and from that day the case was continued from time to time until November 30, 1906, when the evidence was partially heard by the justice and the cause continued to the municipal court of Chicago and set for hearing on December 14, 1906, by orders entered by the justice. The case was called in that court on December 10, 1906, when the attorney for the plaintiff in error entered a special appearance and filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court. The plea was later amended and overruled. The cause then coming on for trial, plaintiff in error demanded a trial by jury, but declined to advance money to apply on the jury fees, as required in such cases by the municipal court act. The demand for a jury was then denied by the court, and upon a hearing, without a jury, judgment was rendered against plaintiff in error.
The contract sued on was executed in duplicate, and is as follows:
It is contended by plaintiff in error: (1) The court erred in overruling the plea filed by plaintiff in error to the jurisdiction of the court. (2) The court erred in holding the municipal court act constitutional in so far as it imposes conditions on the right of plaintiff in error to a trial by jury in this case. (3) The court erred in excluding evidence relating to a conversation that took place between the agent of the publishing society and plaintiff in error at the time the signature was secured to the contract.
SCOTT, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The plaintiff in error questioned the jurisdiction of the municipal court, claiming that the justice of the peace, on November 30, 1906, continued the cause until December 14, 1906, not for the purpose of taking evidence, and that thereby jurisdiction of the case was lost. The cause was not continued to December 14th. The justice continued the cause ‘to the municipal court of Chicago,’ and made an order setting the hearing for December 14, 1906. The jurisdiction of the justice by virtue of the provisions of the municipal court act ceased, for all purposes, with the expiration of the day preceding the first Monday of December, 1906, and on that Monday this cause was, by effect of the statute, transferred to the municipal court, where such proceedings could be had as though said suit had originally been brought in that court. Municipal Court Act, §§ 60, 61 (Hurd's Rev. St. 1905, c. 37, §§ 323, 324). The justice was without power to continue the cause beyond the time when jurisdiction thereof would vest in the municipal court. His order continuing the case to the municipal court was, in effect, an order continuing it until such time as the cause would be transferred to that court by operation of law, to wit, the first Monday in December, 1906. His order setting the case for a hearing on December 14, 1906, was a nullity.
Plaintiff in error demanded a jury trial, but declined to advance the sum of $6 to be applied on the paymentof the fees of the jurors, as required by the fifth subdivision of section 56 of the municipal ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barzellone v. Presley
...Reliance Auto Repair Co. v. Nugent, 159 Wis. 488, 149 N.W. 377 (1914) [Upholding pre-payment of $12.00 jury fee.]; Williams v. Gottschalk, 231 Ill. 175, 83 N.E. 141-42 (1907) [Upholding pre-payment of $6.00 fee.]; State v. Neterer, 33 Wash. 535, 74 P. 668-69 (1903) [Upholding pre-payment of......
-
Kakos v. Butler, 120377.
...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 before us today, the Huber decision strongly implies that the co......
-
Walker v. Chasteen
...77 Ill.Dec. 97, 459 N.E.2d 1346 (quoting Ali v. Danaher , 47 Ill. 2d 231, 236, 265 N.E.2d 103 (1970), quoting Williams v. Gottschalk , 231 Ill. 175, 179, 83 N.E. 141 (1907), quoting Adams v. Corriston , 7 Minn. 456, 461 (1862) ).See also Sanko v. Carlson , 69 Ill. 2d 246, 250, 13 Ill.Dec. 6......
-
People v. Spegal
...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. 141. To construe the 1941 amendment to the Criminal Code as an encroachment upon judicial powers would not only cast doubt on......