{
  "id": 2657397,
  "name": "City of Chicago, Appellant, v. Julius Lowenthal, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Lowenthal",
  "decision_date": "1909-02-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 14,506",
  "first_page": "570",
  "last_page": "571",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "146 Ill. App. 570"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "140 Ill. App. 599",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2614418
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/140/0599-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 1565,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.882817455168317e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4601389887981886
    },
    "sha256": "2cce47d18c30aaf64810a467df54dacb19a3e121440c9a2a53d3ae1eff099162",
    "simhash": "1:e153cff2d53f4011",
    "word_count": 275
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:03:54.613219+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Chicago, Appellant, v. Julius Lowenthal, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an action brought by the city of Chicago for an alleged violation of the junk-shop ordinance, so-called. The appellee is a large dealer, and a dealer in large quantities only\u2014car lots principally\u2014in old and new metals, rubber and rags. He is a wholesale dealer in these commodities, the largest in the city of Chicago. He did not procure a license to keep a \u201cjunk shop\u201d or \u201cjunk wagon,\u201d because he claimed not to be, in the language of the ordinance in question, \u2018 \u2018 exercising, carrying on, or engaging in the business of keeping a junk shop, or what is commonly called a junk shop.\u201d\nThe court below agreed with him, and so do we. The case is not distinguishable from West Side Metal Refining Company v. City of Chicago, 140 Ill. App. 599. We are of the same opinion as when that case was decided.\nThe judgment of the Criminal Court of Cook county is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George H. White, for appellant; Henry M. Seligman, of counsel.",
      "Herman Frank and E. N. Zoline, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Chicago, Appellant, v. Julius Lowenthal, Appellee.\nGen. No. 14,506.\nOrdinances\u2014who not required to take out \u201cjunk shop\u201d license. A wholesale dealer in old and new metals, rubber and rags, etc., is not required, under the ordinances of the city of Chicago, to take out a junk shop license.\nAction commenced before justice of the peace. Appeal from the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. George A. Dttput, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 15, 1909.\nGeorge H. White, for appellant; Henry M. Seligman, of counsel.\nHerman Frank and E. N. Zoline, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0570-01",
  "first_page_order": 612,
  "last_page_order": 613
}