{
  "id": 2761581,
  "name": "Edward Levy, Defendant in Error, v. C. O. F. Burkstrom, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Levy v. Burkstrom",
  "decision_date": "1912-11-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,333",
  "first_page": "276",
  "last_page": "277",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "174 Ill. App. 276"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "237 Ill. 98",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3387128
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/237/0098-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill. App. 655",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2517125
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/127/0655-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 Ill. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5585236
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/195/0502-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 3413,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.594,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0369578409670461e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5497579202494045
    },
    "sha256": "62983fa0251ff614472fc1c0cdeb63376c733615c1275ec2bfaf0bc9108100a0",
    "simhash": "1:c7c999fdbecda09d",
    "word_count": 598
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:56:54.106977+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward Levy, Defendant in Error, v. C. O. F. Burkstrom, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nConfession of judgment on a lease having been entered against Burkstrom, the plaintiff in error, upon motion leave to defend was granted to defendant, execution was stayed and hearing was had before the trial judge in the Municipal Court, who found for Levy, the defendant in error.\nVarious rulings of the court upon the admissibility of evidence are cited as error, and complaint is made concerning the conduct of the court during the trial. We do not cojnment upon these points, as there must be another trial in which these things complained of may not occur.\nWithin proper time and with leave of court, several propositions of law were handed to the court, to be held as the law of the case. The court retained them for a few days, and then declined to consider them or to mark them \u201crefused\u201d or \u201cheld,\u201d saying, \u201cthey are not propositions of law.\u201d Counsel for plaintiff in error requested the court to mark the propositions submitted, but the court refused to do so.\nSection 61 of the Practice Act, chapter 110, Illinois Statutes, provides that \u201cUpon a trial by the court either party may, within such time as the court may require, submit to the court written propositions to be held as law in the decision of the case, upon which the court shall write \u2018\u2019refused\u2019 or \u2018held,\u2019 as'he shall be of opinion is the law, or modify the same, to which either party may except as to other opinions of the court.\u201d\nWe see no escape from the conclusion that it is mandatory upon the trial court to indicate his disposition of the submitted propositions of law by writing thereon. Such was the ruling in Mann v. Learned, 195 Ill. 502, and in Western Valve Co. v. Wells, 127 Ill. App. 655.\nIf counsellor the defendant in error are correct in their contention that these propositions of law are without merit and should have been refused (upon which we express no opinion), then it was the duty of the trial court to mark them \u201crefused.\u201d In Rockhill v. Congress Hotel Co., 237 Ill. 98, cited by defendant in error, it should be noted that it appears from the opinion that all propositions of law were marked either \u201cheld\u201d or \u201crefused,\u201d and the court held that those marked \u201crefused\u201d were properly so marked, not being propositions of law. That is not the question before us.\nWe would enter a judgment upon the merits of this controversy, except that the condition of the record before us makes this impossible.\nFor the reason indicated the order of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Otto G. Ryden, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Sabath, Levinson & Stafford, for defendant in error ; Leo W. Hoffman, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward Levy, Defendant in Error, v. C. O. F. Burkstrom, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,333.\nTrial\u2014propositions of law must he marked. Where, within proper time and with leave of court, several propositions of law are handed to the court, to he held as the law of the case, by virtue of the Practice Act (R. S., c. 110, \u00a7 61), it is mandatory upon the court to indicate his disposition thereof by writing thereon, and he cannot decline to consider or mark them.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1911.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 7, 1912.\nRehearing denied and opinion modified November 21, 1912.\nOtto G. Ryden, for plaintiff in error.\nSabath, Levinson & Stafford, for defendant in error ; Leo W. Hoffman, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0276-01",
  "first_page_order": 294,
  "last_page_order": 295
}