{
  "id": 5260746,
  "name": "City of Carlyle v. Fred Harms",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Carlyle v. Harms",
  "decision_date": "1899-09-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "264",
  "last_page": "266",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 264"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2818,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "sha256": "7cbfa22cdb30eb51394581b2c0bd33fae66cb4221a9ca848e6cd466393b4ef4e",
    "simhash": "1:d3d4e4d8b704d29b",
    "word_count": 488
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:05:11.837712+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Carlyle v. Fred Harms."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Worthington\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nSuit for the violation of an ordinance.\nComplaint charges that Fred Harms did, in the city of Carlyle, county of Clinton, and State of Illinois, on the 28th day of July, 1897, and from that date to August 7, 1897, unlawfully and without license, exercise and follow the calling and business of a peddler, itinerant merchant and transient vender of merchandise.\nA jury was waived and the case tried by the judge. Ho propositions of law were submitted, the following stipulation being made:\n\u201c It is hereby stipulated by and between the plaintiff and the defendant, that in case an appeal is taken to the Appellate Court of the Fourth District of the State of Illinois, either party shall have every advantage that he would have if propositions of law had been submitted and passed upon by the court.\nCity of Carlyle,\nBy B. C. Lambe,\nCity Attorney.\nMoHale, Van Hoorebeke & Louden,\nAttorneys for Defendant.\u201d\nThe finding of the court was as follows:\n\u201c The court finds upon the evidence that the defendant did not violate any of the provisions of the ordinance and finds the defendant not guilty.\u201d\nTo this finding plaintiff in error excepted.\nThis is the only exception before the court for review, and the evidence is of such a character that we are not prepared to say that the court erred in its finding on the evidence alone. As no propositions of law were submitted, we can not say from the record upon what conclusions of law the court acted. Propositions of law, to be reviewed by an appellate court in cases tried by a judge, must first be submitted to the judge and his rulings had upon them. They can not be raised in an appellate court for the first time, by a sweeping stipulation that \u201c either party may have every advantage that he would have if propositions had been submitted and passed upon by the court.\u201d Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Worthington"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Porter W. Brown, city attorney, for plaintiff in error; M. P. Murray, of counsel.",
      "Van Hoorebeke & Louden, attorneys for defendant in error; James MoHale, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Carlyle v. Fred Harms.\n1. Practice\u2014Proposition of Law\u2014Can Not Be \u2018Raised try Stipulation.\u2014Propositions of law, to be reviewed by an appellate court in cases tried by a judge, must first be submitted to the judge and his rulings had upon them. They can not be raised in an appellate court for the first time, by a sweeping stipulation that \u201c either party may have every advantage that he would have if propositions had been submitted and passed upon by the court.\u201d\nSuit for the Violation of an Ordinance.\u2014Trial in the Circuit Court of Clinton County; the Hon. Truman E. Ames, Judge, presiding. Finding and judgment for defendant; error by plaintiff. Heard in this court at the August term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed September 5, 1899.\nPorter W. Brown, city attorney, for plaintiff in error; M. P. Murray, of counsel.\nVan Hoorebeke & Louden, attorneys for defendant in error; James MoHale, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0264-01",
  "first_page_order": 272,
  "last_page_order": 274
}