{
  "id": 2440866,
  "name": "City of Olney v. W. J. Todd and Phillip Todd",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Olney v. Todd",
  "decision_date": "1893-06-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "439",
  "last_page": "441",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "47 Ill. App. 439"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "32 Ill. App. 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4981511
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/32/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ill. App. 659",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5012354
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/36/0659-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 Ill. 36",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2986387
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/135/0036-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 Ill. 380",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5421263
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/132/0380-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 3050,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08091089480506393
    },
    "sha256": "e0900f846e671c860524d7add9fcb3afe8a2160b408c1eacf77321a3c7f60dd3",
    "simhash": "1:3930410a4c5ecf00",
    "word_count": 533
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:46.022143+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Olney v. W. J. Todd and Phillip Todd."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Green.\nAppellees were charged with a violation of a city ordinance of the city of Olney, by peddling in said city without a license. The cause was tried in the Circuit Court, on appeal from a justice\u2019s court. By agreement of parties a jury was waived. The court found the issue for defendants, and the city took this appeal.\nThe evidence establishes the following facts: That appellees were traveling salesmen for \u201cBoss Bros.,\u201d wholesale dealers, doing business in Terre Haute, Indiana. That on or about March 25, 1892, one of the Todds, while so employed, came to Olney with samples of lace curtains, exhibited them to various persons, from whom he solicited orders and took orders from three of these persons, each for one pair of curtains. He delivered no goods and was paid no money. The orders were accepted and the curtains were shipped from Terre Haute, via the American Express Company, to Olney, about two weeks thereafter, at which time the other defendant came to Olney, received the goods from the express company, delivered to each of said purchasers the curtains ordered, and took the pay therefor. Two material questions, are submitted to us to determine as we view the case, viz.: Who is a peddler ? And were the defendants peddlers within the meaning of the law? A peddler is a person who travels about the country with merchandise for the purpose of selling it; an itinerant vender of small wares which he carries with him for sale; a traveling trader, one who carries small commodities about on his back, or in a cart, or in a wagon, and sells them. In the opinion in Emmons v. Lewiston, 132 Ill. 380, it is said\": \u201c It has never been understood by the profession, or the people, that one who is ordinarily styled a \u201c drummer \u201d \u2014that is, one who sells to retail dealers, or others by sample, is either a hawker or peddler.\u201d Hnder the facts proven, neither of the defendants were peddlers within the meaning of the law, and hence had not been guilty of violating said ordinance by reason of any act done by either of them, proven at the trial in the Circuit Court. Cerro Gordo v. Rawlings, 135 Ill. 36; Emmons v. Lewiston, supra; Delisle v. Danville, 36 Ill. App. 659; Rawlings v. Cerro Gordo, 32 Ill. App. 215.\nThe finding was right, and the judgment of the court below is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Green."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. R. S. Rowland, for appellant.",
      "Mr. R. B. Witcher, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Olney v. W. J. Todd and Phillip Todd.\nLicenses\u2014Municipal Ordinance\u2014Traveling Salesmen\u2014Peddlers.\n1. \"A peddler is a person who travels about the country with merchandise for the purpose of selling it\u2014an itinerant vender of small wares which he carries with him for sale.\n2. In an action wherein certain defendants were charged with violating a municipal ordinance by peddling in a given city without a license, this court holds that the evidence did not show them to be peddlers, and affirms the judgment in their favor.\n[Opinion filed June 26, 1893.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Bichland County; the Hon. C. C. Boggs, Judge, presiding.\nMr. R. S. Rowland, for appellant.\nMr. R. B. Witcher, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0439-01",
  "first_page_order": 435,
  "last_page_order": 437
}
