{ "id": 5176455, "name": "North Chicago Street Railroad Company v. Adelbert W. Olds", "name_abbreviation": "North Chicago Street Railroad v. Olds", "decision_date": "1896-06-11", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "595", "last_page": "598", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "64 Ill. App. 595" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "149 Ill. 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5470799 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/149/0536-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ill. App. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5116179 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/51/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. App. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5020651 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/40/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ill. 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5319343 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/73/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 Ill. 549", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2893527 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/117/0549-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Ill. App. 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 869007 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/62/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Scam. 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2478560 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/3/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 Ill. 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3131427 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/159/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ill. App. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5101461 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/54/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 Ill. 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 6045834 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/158/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 Ill. App. 580", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5158398 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/60/0580-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 424, "char_count": 6664, "ocr_confidence": 0.569, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.174362795227682e-08, "percentile": 0.5090265880365998 }, "sha256": "abcaee57db833e727a2dc37f820d18f4c99e12283a5696fa485a610ab1c5a08a", "simhash": "1:07f519f825ba2644", "word_count": 1203 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "North Chicago Street Railroad Company v. Adelbert W. Olds." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nFebruary 1, 1896, being still within the January term of the Supreme Court, the appellee obtained judgment against the appellant from which it prayed and was granted an appeal, and leave given to file a bill of exceptions within twenty days from that date.\nThe record shows that on February 18th and again on the 21st, on motion of the appellant\u2019s attorney, an order was entered in each instance that the time to file a \u201c bill of exceptions herein be and is hereby extended five days.\u201d Giving the most liberal construction to those orders, the time under the last one expired March 2, 1896. The bill of exceptions concludes: \u201c Signed this 4th day of March as of the 21st day of February, A. D. 1896.\nJames Goggin, [Seal.]\nJudge of the Superior Court of Cook County.\u201d\nAnd the original bill of exceptions, which is in the record under a stipulation, is indorsed : \u201c Filed March 4-96, nunc pro tunc as of February 22, \u201996.\nS. D. Griffin, Clerk.\u201d\nThe appellee moves to strike it out. Below the signature of the judge are the words: \u201c Presented in open court this\ntwenty-first day of February, A. D. 1896.\nJames Goggin, Judge.\u201d\nCan we regard these words ? There is no statute or common law which warrants our doing so. If the seal were not affixed to the signature to the bill, the bill itself would be of no avail. French v. Hotchkiss, 60 Ill. App. 580.\nNotwithstanding the loose practice in this State contemplates that the parties will be constantly on the watch, so that no notice is necessary so long as the case is pending, and thus the court retains jurisdiction, yet there is so much of safety remaining that on direct proceedings to review, the jurisdiction of the court must be shown by the record. Law v. Grommes, 158 Ill. 492; Morgan v. Campbell, 54 Ill. App. 242.\nNow all action by the court in relation to bills of exceptions, except the mere signing by the judge, is in its nature judicial. U. S. Life Ins. Co. v. Shattuck, 159 Ill. 610. Settling the bill is a judicial act. Emerson v. Clark, 2 Scam. 489..\nIf done after the term, notice is necessary. Railway Passenger, etc., v. Leonard, 62 Ill. App. 477; Heinsen v. Lamb, 117 Ill. 549.\nThere is no possible reason for presenting a bill of exceptions to a judge other than that he shall settle and sign it, and if it be presented under such circumstances that he has no authority to do either, such presentation is necessarily a mere nullity. Now if we read as evidence of the facts what is written below the signature to the bill, the result is probably that February 21, 1896, some messenger of the appellant came into court, without notice to anybody, poked this bill at the judge, who wrote his name at the end of the words written, and then the messenger went off carrying the bill with him; all of which acts were utterly idle, and of no legal effect.\nWhether the position that the parties can not, by agreement, extend the time after the term, is to be adhered to or not (Humphreyville v. Culver, 73 Ill. 485), the mere stipulation under the statute to use the original as part of the transcript, waives nothing as to the original.\nThe bill of exceptions was signed and filed when all power had ended. Railway Passenger, etc., v. Leonard, Supreme Court, May 12, 1896.\nNo presumptions in favor of jurisdiction ought to be entertained; if not shown, it should be held non-existent.\nThe motion to strike out, ought, in my judgment, to be sustained, but neither of my colleagues agrees with me.\nThis action is for personal injury to the appellee. The \u2022 case is stated in 40 Ill. App. 421.\nOn the last trial, at the instance of the appellee, special questions were submitted to the jury, which questions, and the answers by the jury thereto, are as follows:\n\u201cQ. Was the plaintiff a trespasser when he got upon defendant\u2019s car the second time ? A. Ho.\nj\nQ. Did the plaintiff conduct himself in a disorderly manner or use any improper language or conduct himself in any way to give offense to any passenger of defendant? A. Ho.\nQ. Was the plaintiff put off of defendant\u2019s car when the same was in motion, and was he nut off in a dangerous place ? A. Yes.\u201d\nThe first question is of law, and the answer not to be considered.\nOn the testimony of the appellee himself, he was a trespasser.\nHe testified that he was shoved off, followed the car and got on again.\nWe are bound by the law we laid down on the first appeal. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 51 Ill. App. 67; 149 Ill. 536.\nWe therefore hold that the appellee was a trespasser, having been put off the same car but a few moments before by the conductor, and without right re-entered npon the car of the appellant, and that, without unnecessary force, he was put off said car by the conductor for good cause, and without other injury to him than such as resulted from his own wrong, and we reverse the judgment without remanding the case. This course will enable the Supreme Court to decide whether the bill of exceptions is properly in the record; if it is not, this judgment is wrong, and that of the Superior Court should be affirmed. Judgment reversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary" } ], "attorneys": [ "Egbert Jamieson and John A. Rose, attorneys for appellant.", "Consider H. Willett, attorney for appellee; Oscar H. McConoughey, of counsel." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "North Chicago Street Railroad Company v. Adelbert W. Olds.\n1. Bill of Exceptions\u2014Action by the Court in Relation Thereto.\u2014 All action by the court in relation to bills of exceptions, except the mere signing by the judge, is in its nature judicial. If done after the term, notice is necessary.\n2. Same\u2014Signing the Same Nunc pro Tunc.\u2014A bill of exceptions can not be signed nunc pro tunc.\n3. Same\u2014Not Under Seal.\u2014If the seal of the judge is not affixed to his signature to the bill of exceptions, the bill itself is of no avail.\n4. Same\u2014Signed After the Expiration of the Time Fixed.\u2014The signing of a bill of exceptions by the judge, after the time for doing so has expired, is of no legal effect.\n5. Trespasser\u2014On Railroads.\u2014A person who, without right, after being put off a car, follows it up and gets on again, is a trespasser and can not recover if, without the use of unnecessary force, he is injured in being a second time put off the car.\n6. Special Interrogatories.\u2014To be Question of Fact.\u2014A special interrogatory\u2014' \u2018 Was the plaintiff a trespasser.when he got on defendant\u2019s car the second time ? \u201d\u2014is a question of law, and the answer is not to be considered.\nTrespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. James Goggin, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 11, 1896.\nEgbert Jamieson and John A. Rose, attorneys for appellant.\nConsider H. Willett, attorney for appellee; Oscar H. McConoughey, of counsel." }, "file_name": "0595-01", "first_page_order": 593, "last_page_order": 596 }