{
  "id": 5264154,
  "name": "Chicago Stamping Co. v. Robert C. Danly and K. H. Cottle",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chicago Stamping Co. v. Danly",
  "decision_date": "1899-10-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "322",
  "last_page": "324",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "85 Ill. App. 322"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 210,
    "char_count": 3766,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.892945138579655e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4191057084795291
    },
    "sha256": "3d98c7620d1c5d935f3e5d9ae8a97e58574180b75bc9b4001a2cb9875be685e3",
    "simhash": "1:eab74b71740baef4",
    "word_count": 665
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:07:53.008228+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Chicago Stamping Co. v. Robert C. Danly and K. H. Cottle."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hr. Presiding J ustioe Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from an order by the Circuit Court quashing a writ of certiorari and dismissing the petition upon which such writ was issued. To authorize or sustain such a writ to remove a cause from a justice of the peace, the petition therefor must set forth and show, first, that the judgment by the justice was not the result of negligence on the part of the petitioner; second, that the judgment in his opinion is unjust and erroneous, showing wherein' the injustice and error consists; third, that it was not in the power of the petitioner to take an appeal in the ordinary way, setting forth the particular circumstances which prevented him from so doing.\nWhether the amended petition of appellant was sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute as to the first and second items, it is not necessary here to inquire. It must not, however, be inferred from this that we are of opinion that the petition is sufficient as to those items. No brief or argument is filed by appellee, and the argument of appellant is mainly as to whether the amended petition is sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute as to the third item.\nThe petition states that after judgment had been entered against appellant in the justice of the peace court, the parties made an agreement, by the provisions of which they settled all the matters involved in this suit; that in consideration of said agreement, appellant \u201c then and there agreed not to prosecute its said appeal,\u201d and that it \u201c would have appealed said cause, as was its intention, had it not been for the said agreement.\u201d\nHow can it be said that it was not in the power of appellant to take an appeal in the ordinary way, when the petition shows affirmatively that it was in its power, and that it intended so to do, but that it did not appeal because it had agreed that it would hot ? It would be a work of supererogation to investigate and cite authorities in support of so clear a proposition. The authorities cited by appellant do not support the contention of counsel. The right of a writ of certiorari is controlled by the statute, and the petition is to be construed most strongly against the petitioner. Whatever rights or remedies appellant may have, \u2022 if any, for failure to perform the agreement set out in said petition, the right to a writ of certiorari is not one'Jof them.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hr. Presiding J ustioe Horton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wm. J. Candlish, attorney for appellant.",
      "No appearance by appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Chicago Stamping Co. v. Robert C. Danly and K. H. Cottle.\n1. Certiorabi\u2014Requisites of the Petition.\u2014To sustain a writ of certiorari to remove a cause from a justice of the peace, the petition must show that the judgment was not the result of negligence on the part of the petitioner; that in his opinion it is unjust and erroneous, showing wherein the injustice and error consists; and that it was not in his power to take an appeal in the ordinary way, setting forth the particular circumstances which prevented him from doing so.\n2. Same\u2014What is Not Sufficient.\u2014The fact that the parties before the justice made an agreement not to appeal, and that the petitioner would have taken an appeal, as was his intention, had it not been for the agreement, is not sufficient to show that it was not in his power to take an appeal in the ordinary way.\n3. Same\u2014Petitions for\u2014Hoto Construed.\u2014The- right to a writ of certiorari is controlled by the statute, and the petition is to be construed most strongly against the petitioner.\nCertiorari.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1899.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 27, 1899.\nWm. J. Candlish, attorney for appellant.\nNo appearance by appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0322-01",
  "first_page_order": 332,
  "last_page_order": 334
}