{ "id": 2582681, "name": "Dr. T. P. Leonard, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Walsh, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Leonard v. Walsh", "decision_date": "1966-05-09", "docket_number": "Gen. No. M-10,674", "first_page": "45", "last_page": "48", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "73 Ill. App. 2d 45" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "215 NE2d 678", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 Ill App2d 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2594923 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/68/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 NE2d 927", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1942, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 Ill App 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 3395120 ], "year": 1942, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/316/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 NE2d 241", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 Ill App2d 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5213172 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/26/0180-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 345, "char_count": 5197, "ocr_confidence": 0.621, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.8112191108781393e-07, "percentile": 0.837604045641271 }, "sha256": "21de6acb86672910dab0ee0ecc3b37125802278164b18e6c5926012ea3bc4a94", "simhash": "1:3353f727994a9d5c", "word_count": 886 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:16.136232+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Dr. T. P. Leonard, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Walsh, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CRAVEN, J.\nThis action originated in the magistrate\u2019s division of the circuit court of Macon County, in the form of a small claims complaint to collect $50 for medical services allegedly rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The action was instituted and the complaint signed by one \u201cB. J. Smith agent for Dr. T. P. Leonard.\u201d\nThe defendant, by special and limited appearance, filed a motion for change of venue, asserting his residence to be in Logan County, and further alleging that the plaintiff had not rendered any medical services to the defendant in Macon County. The motion to dismiss was denied. Subsequently, judgment was entered against the defendant by default. This appeal is from that judgment. The record of proceedings from recollection indicates this cause of action to be predicated upon the following facts.\nThe defendant, an attorney, who resides in Logan County, requested the plaintiff, a resident of Macon County, to come to Logan County to testify on behalf of defendant\u2019s client in pending litigation. Plaintiff agreed and did appear in Logan County for purposes of testimony. The request to testify was made of the plaintiff in Macon County.\nThe sole contention of the defendant here is that the judgment is \u201cmanifestly wrong\u201d and in contravention of the venue provisions of the Civil Practice Act.\nSection 5, c 110, Ill Rev Stats 1963, provides:\n\u201cExcept as otherwise provided in this Act, every action must be commenced (a) in the county of residence of any defendant who is joined in good faith and with probable cause for the purpose of obtaining a judgment against him and not solely for the purpose of fixing venue in that county, or (b) in the county in which the transaction or some part thereof occurred out of which the cause of action arose.\u201d\nThe phrase, placing venue \u201cin the county in which the transaction or some part thereof occurred out of which the cause of action arose,\u201d is determinative of the venue issue raised by this appeal. It is not necessary, as the defendant contends, either that the defendant reside in Macon County or that the medical services were performed in that county; rather, it is only required that some part of the transaction occurred in that county. It is clear from this record that such was the fact. The motion for change of venue was properly denied. Standard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kinsolving, 26 Ill App2d 180, 167 NE2d 241 (1960); Consolidated Gasoline Co. v. Lexow, 316 Ill App 257, 44 NE2d 927 (1942).\nThis record shows this proceeding to have been instituted on behalf of an individual plaintiff by one who is described as an agent and who is not an attorney. The decision of this Court in Remole Soil Serv., Inc. v. Benson, filed April 12, 1966, 68 Ill App2d 234, 215 NE2d 678, requires a reversal of the judgment.\nIn this case, it is clear that one not licensed to practice law has instituted legal proceedings on behalf of another in a court of record. When this appears the suit should be dismissed, and if it has proceeded to judgment the judgment is void and will be reversed. 7 CJS Attorney and Client, par 16b.\nThe judgment of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the suit at the plaintiff\u2019s cost.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nTRAPP, P. J. and SMITH, J., concur.\nSupplemental Opinion On Rehearing.\nRehearing was granted in this case.\nThis court, on its own motion, received additional briefs and heard further argument of counsel on the matters discussed in the opinion.\nIn this case, the complaint was filed by one \u201cB. J. Smith agent for\u201d plaintiff. It is urged that on the same date the complaint was filed, a request for summons was filed, bearing the name of an attorney, and that thereafter an attorney represented the plaintiff throughout the proceeding.\nThe Civil Practice Act, \u00a7 13 (1) (Ill Rev Stats 1965, c 110, par 13(1)), provides, \u201cEvery action . . . shall be commenced by the filing of a complaint . . .\u201d Rule 9-1 of the Supreme Court rules (Ill Rev Stats 1965, c 110, \u00a7 101.9-1B), governing small claims, provides that an action on a small claim may be \u201ccommenced by . . . filing a short and simple complaint . . .\u201d That which initiates the proceeding is the complaint, not the praecipe for summons. See Historical and Practice Notes, SHA c 110, \u00a7 13.\nAs early as 1841, it was held that no person can commence an action in a court of record as \u201cagent\u201d for another unless he is a regularly licensed attorney. Robb v. Smith, 3 Scam (4 Ill) 46. Subsequent pronouncements on the subject do not modify the philosophy underlying this holding. See ILP, Attorneys and Counselors, \u00a7 15, and cases there cited.\nFor the reasons stated, we adhere to the views set forth in our original opinion, and this cause is reversed and remanded with the directions contained in the original opinion.\nTRAPP, P. J. and SMITH, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "CRAVEN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Thomas F. Walsh, pro se, of Lincoln, appellant.", "Burger, Geisler & Fombelle, of Decatur (Norman J. Fombelle, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Dr. T. P. Leonard, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Walsh, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. M-10,674.\nFourth District.\nMay 9, 1966.\nSupplemental opinion September 26, 1966.\nThomas F. Walsh, pro se, of Lincoln, appellant.\nBurger, Geisler & Fombelle, of Decatur (Norman J. Fombelle, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0045-01", "first_page_order": 51, "last_page_order": 54 }