{
  "id": 2857922,
  "name": "Albert W. Rudnick, Administrator, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago et al., Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rudnick v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1916-04-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,897",
  "first_page": "474",
  "last_page": "476",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 474"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 4308,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.279034880960449e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7846860955986237
    },
    "sha256": "f2e91c14b624bc9669ea1fc803cce9286caf73883508ed0501fd1676e71b8a12",
    "simhash": "1:a271c02f55b8d556",
    "word_count": 719
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Albert W. Rudnick, Administrator, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago et al., Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Civil service, \u00a7 10 \u2014when Civil Service Commission has no power to create office. The Civil Service Commission has no power to create the office of \u201cmeter setter\u201d in the Departmnt of Public Works in Chicago but can only classify the offices created by ordinances of the city council.\n3. Mandamus, \u00a7 139*\u2014when petition in mandamus to compel reinstatement of officer insufficient. In mandamus proceedings where the existence of the office is claimed, it must be made to appear by appropriate averments that the office was created in the manner prescribed in cases of such character.\n4. Evidence, \u00a7 1\u00d3*\u2014when judicial notice not taken of municipal ordinances. Courts of general jurisdiction do not take judicial notice of municipal ordinances, but he who relies upon such an ordinance must allege and prove it as a matter of fact.\n5. Civil service, \u00a7 27*\u2014when proceeding for mandamus not remanded. Writ of mandamus having been issued to reinstate relator to office of \u201cmeter setter\u201d in the Chicago Department of Public Works, the Appellate Court, in reversing the judgment of the trial court, will not remand the cause, it appearing that relator was not entitled to the writ and is dead.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Beckwith, Joseph F. Grossman and John E. Foster, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "A. D. Gash, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Albert W. Rudnick, Administrator, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago et al., Plaintiffs in Error.\nGen. No. 20,897.\n(Not to be reported, in full.)\nError to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed April 10, 1916.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nPetition for mandamus by Albert W. Rudnick, administrator of the estate of James F. Scanned, deceased, against the City of Chicago et alrespondents. From a judgment awarding the writ, respondents bring error.\nThe relator obtained from the Circuit Court a writ of mandamus reinstating him into the claimed office of \u201cmeter setter\u201d in the Department of Public Works of the City of Chicago. Since the writ was sued out respondents suggested the death of relator and his administrator was substituted and duly summoned, and while his appearance had been entered he failed to file briefs or argue the cause.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Civil service, \u00a7 27 \u2014when petition in mandamus for reinstatement of meter setter insufficient. Where a petition for mandamus to reinstate petitioner in the office of \u201cmeter setter\u201d in the Department of Public Works of the City of Chicago averred that such Department of Public Works was created by an ordinance passed in 1881, and that by the Revised Code of Chicago of 1897 said department embraced the Commissioner of Public Works and such other employees as- the city council might by ordinance prescribe and establish, but by nb averment of the petition was it made to appear that the city council by ordinance created the office of \u201cmeter setter,\u201d held that such petition was insufficient as it did not plead any ordinance showing the creation of the office.\nThe cause was tried before the court upon the petition as twice amended, the answer of respondents and a stipulation of fact. The relator had before the filing of the petition been dismissed upon a trial before the Civil Service Commission, in conformity with the requirements of the civil service law. The relator averred that the Department of Public Works, was created by ordinance passed April 18, 1881; that thereafter, by the Revised Code of the City of Chicago, 1897, the said department was established as an executive department of the municipal government of Chicago known as the Department of Public Works, embracing the Commissioner of Public'Works and such other employees as the city council may by ordinance prescribe and establish.\nBy no averment of the petition as amended was it made to appear that the city council by ordinance created the office of \u201cmeter setter, \u2019' nor was any such ordinance cited in such amended petition.\nJohn W. Beckwith, Joseph F. Grossman and John E. Foster, for plaintiffs in error.\nA. D. Gash, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, anti Cumulative Quarterly, same tppic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0474-01",
  "first_page_order": 498,
  "last_page_order": 500
}