{ "id": 5121779, "name": "Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Town of Calumet", "name_abbreviation": "Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Town of Calumet", "decision_date": "1893-05-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "555", "last_page": "557", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "50 Ill. App. 555" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "12 Brad. 281", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Bradf.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2629098 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/68/0418-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 Ill. 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5387229 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/121/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Brad. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Bradf.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "35 Ill. App. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "31 Ill. App. 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "27 Ill. App. 559", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4956523 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/27/0559-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 Ill. 555", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 831496 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/108/0555-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 Ill. 519", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 824026 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/78/0519-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ill. 137", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5232177 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/59/0137-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ill. 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5236064 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/58/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ill. 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2605687 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/50/0087-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ill. 507", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5215809 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/36/0507-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 Ill. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5385753 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/120/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Ill. 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2654464 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/84/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 Ill. 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5387229 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/121/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Brad. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Bradf.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 340, "char_count": 5996, "ocr_confidence": 0.515, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.8260423191032394e-07, "percentile": 0.8387498653396395 }, "sha256": "58d6e5d34868f9b9cc7dae6d1e2c0fde6df42bf4a745e81eb37f4b822a421a3b", "simhash": "1:56c24434c67ae8b8", "word_count": 1067 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:42.711650+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Town of Calumet." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Opinion of the Coubt,\nGary, P. J.\nThe appellee, by a complaint in writing, stating all the details upon which a summons, nearly as explicit, was issued, sued the appellant before a justice of the peace for a penalty incurred by the appellant, under Sec. 35 of \u201c An act in relation to fencing and operating railroads,\u201d approved Harch 31,1874, by neglecting to place a flagman at a street crossing.\nThe judgment of the justice recites that the appellant was found guilty in manner and form as charged in the complaint entered and filed in this cause, \u201c Whereupon it is considered by the court that said plaintiff (appellee here) have and recover of the said defendant (appellant here) the sum of two hundred dollars as a fine,\u201d etc.\nFrom that judgment the appellant appealed to the Circuit Court, where the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appeal should have been taken to the Criminal Court of Cook County, under section 26, article 6, of the constitution.\nThe transcript and papers transmitted by the justice to the Circuit Court, show the character of the case.\n\u201c The law designed that the proceedings in the Circuit Court should be based upon the transcript. It supplies the place of a declaration in original suits at law, in courts of record, where written pleadings are had.\u201d Reid v. Driscoll 84 Ill. 96.\nHere the transcript by reference incorporated the complaint, so that whether a written complaint was necessary, as in actions for forcible detainer, or not, it is in this case a part of the transcript. It is true that it makes no difference what name a justice gives to an action before him; it is, on appeal, to be what the evidence fits. But the same cause of action must be prosecuted on appeal as was sued upon before the justice, unless leave to add, by amendment, has been obtained.\nThe case, then, is of the character called quasi criminal, of which the Criminal Court has jurisdiction on appeal. Tully v. Town of Northfield, 6 Brad. 356.\nThen, as section 26, article 6, of the constitution, requires that all appeals taken in Cook county, in quasi criminal cases, shall be taken to the Criminal Court, it follows that they can not be taken elsewhere, and the Circuit Court rightly dismissed this one. An appeal in any case, at law, is a matter of positive law; and it lies only as is provided by law. In the matter of Storey, 120 Ill. 244, cases collected at page 252.\nThis view does not conflict with Berkowitz v. Lester, 121 Ill. 99.\nThe Circuit Court may have jurisdiction of the class of cases known as quasi criminal, and entertain an original suit of that class, commenced there, and yet appeals in cases of that class, commenced in a justice court, may be denied altogether or directed elsewhere.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Gary, P. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant\u2019s Brief, Robert Mather and Thomas S. Wright, Attorneys.", "Appellee\u2019s Beief, Gbeenacbe & Bbi&ham, Attoeneys." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Town of Calumet.\n1. Appeals from Justices of the Peace\u2014Quasi Criminal Cases.\u2014 Section 26, article 6, of the constitution, requires that all appeals taken in Cook county in quasi criminal cases shall be taken to the Criminal Court.\n2. Appeals\u2014In Cases at Law.\u2014An appeal in a ease at law is a matter of positive law, and lies only as provided by law.\n3. Appeals from Justice\u2019s Court\u2014Proceedings in Circuit Court\u2014 Transcript.\u2014The law designed that the proceedings in the Circuit Court upon appeals from justice\u2019s courts should be based upon the transcript of the justice. It supplies the place of a declaration in suits at law in courts of record, where written pleadings are had.\n4. Actions\u2014Names in Justice's Court.\u2014It makes no difference what name a justice gives to an action before him; it is, on appeal, to be what the evidence fits. But the same cause of action must be prosecuted on appeal as was sued upon before the justice, unless leave to change, by amendment, has been obtained.\n5. Railroads\u2014Appeals in Quasi Criminal Cases in Coolc County.\u2014 A prosecution of a railroad company, under Sec. 35 of the act in relation to fencing and operating railroads, approved March 31, 1874, for neglecting to place a flagman at a street crossing, is a quasi criminal case, and appeals from justices of the peace in such cases in Cook county must be taken to the Criminal Court.\nMemorandum.\u2014Appeal from Justice\u2019s Court. In the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding. Appeal from an order dismissing an appeal. Heard in this court at tire March term, 1893, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed May 24, 1893.\nAppellant\u2019s Brief, Robert Mather and Thomas S. Wright, Attorneys.\nThe only question presented by this record, therefore, is whether or not the present action is a \u201cquasi criminal case.\u201d It has been repeatedly determined by the courts of this State that an action to recover a fine or a penalty is a purely civil action. Jacksonville v. Block, 36 Ill. 507; Graubner v. Jacksonville, 50 Ill. 87; Havana v. Biggs, 58 Ill. 483; Hoyer v. Mascoutah, 59 Ill. 137; Town of Partridge v. Snyder, 78 Ill. 519; Genoa v. Van Alstine, 108 Ill. 555; Chicago v. Enright, 27 Ill. App. 559; Knowles v. Wayne City, 31 Ill. App. 474; Chicago v. Kenney, 35 Ill. App. 64.\nAppellee\u2019s Beief, Gbeenacbe & Bbi&ham, Attoeneys.\nThat it is the nature, and not the form of the proceeding that marks it as a civil, quasi criminal, or criminal case within the meaning of the constitution, see. Knowles v. Village of Wayne City, 31 App. Ct. 471 (475); City v. Kenney, 35 App. Ct. 57 (64).\nCivil cases are of two kinds\u2014those purely civil and those quasi criminal. A quasi criminal case is not a criminal case nearly like a civil case; it is a civil case somewhat resembling, in its nature, a criminal case. That a quasi criminal case is not a criminal offense as defined by the criminal code, is made plain by the cases of Wiggins v. City, 68 Ill. 375; Tully v. Northfield, 6 Brad. 356; and Berkowitz v. Lester, 121 Ill. 99 (113, 114).\nThat a case may be civil in form and quasi criminal in nature, is established by Baldwin v. City, 68 Ill. 418; Town of Greenfield v. Mook, 12 Brad. 281." }, "file_name": "0555-01", "first_page_order": 551, "last_page_order": 553 }