{
  "id": 2880294,
  "name": "William S. Douglas, Appellant, v. William E. Dee, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Douglas v. Dee",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,841",
  "first_page": "612",
  "last_page": "613",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 Ill. App. 612"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 3245,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.431403558356252e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4841892326541045
    },
    "sha256": "844ff502394d9ad040eab25a8cb9b4afb35c88aa5add639c0e35dfe21c4f68b6",
    "simhash": "1:d6f1d5e700ed127a",
    "word_count": 559
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:49:21.752065+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William S. Douglas, Appellant, v. William E. Dee, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles Kramer and John S. Dornblaser, for appellant.",
      "John M. Quinlan, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William S. Douglas, Appellant, v. William E. Dee, Appellee.\nGen. No. 20,841.\n(Not to foe reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Adelob J. Petit, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 5, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by William S. Douglas, plaintiff, against William E. Dee, defendant, in the Circuit Court of Cook county, on appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace of Cook county, to recover a commission for the sale of a truck, under a contract that defendant should ,pay plaintiff, as a commission for the sale, any amount in excess of $1,550 for which the truck should be sold. The sale was made for $1,875. After a trial by jury in the Circuit Court, and verdict for plaintiff for $240, defendant moved for a new trial and to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and the court allowed both motions. From a judgment for defendant for costs, plaintiff appeals.\nCharles Kramer and John S. Dornblaser, for appellant.\nJohn M. Quinlan, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Justices of the peace, \u00a7 247 \u2014what nature of proceedings on appeal. On appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, the case must he tried de novo, unless the evidence shows that the justice had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action, the court having in such case the same, and no other or more extensive jurisdiction than the justice whose judgment is appealed from.\n2. Dismissal, non-suit and discontinuance, \u00a7 33 \u2014what proper time to entertain motion to dismiss. A court has no power to entertain a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction until the evidence is heard, for the reason that the question of jurisdiction can only he determined from the evidence.\n3. Coubts, \u00a7 69*\u2014when want of jurisdiction cannot he waived. Although the want of jurisdiction of the parties to an action may he waived, the want of jurisdiction of its subject-matter cannot be waived, for the reason that jurisdiction of such subject-matter cannot be conferred on a court by consent.\n4. Pleading, \u00a7 78*\u2014how jurisdiction questioned. Want of jurisdiction may he taken advantage of either by plea or by motion to dismiss, and a motion to dismiss on the ground of want of jurisdiction to take any action at all may he made at any time.\n5. Costs, \u00a7 14*-\u2014when allowed on dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Where the court properly allows a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, judgment against plaintiff for costs is also proper.\n6. Dismissal, non-suit and discontinuance, \u00a7 33*\u2014when proper to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. A motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is properly allowed where the evidence fairly tends to show that plaintiff\u2019s claim is for an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of the court, unless plaintiff, not later than the conclusion of all the evidence, disclaims the right to recover more than the amount fixed as the limit of the jurisdiction of the court, and a remittitur at a later time is ineffectual to cure the want of jurisdiction.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0612-01",
  "first_page_order": 634,
  "last_page_order": 635
}