{
  "id": 823967,
  "name": "The City of Collinsville v. James Cole",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Collinsville v. Cole",
  "decision_date": "1875-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "114",
  "last_page": "116",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 Ill. 114"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5266647
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/43/0047-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 2328,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.635,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.467464675744208e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8061765377054801
    },
    "sha256": "5aaa1d191920b321b4c66a5528c00fec2b37d8d10ca16c5c345e2cfcfd0261d6",
    "simhash": "1:84ef849ae81b57b3",
    "word_count": 405
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:31:53.325025+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The City of Collinsville v. James Cole."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action to recover a penalty for the violation of an ordinance of the city of Collinsville, in which a judgment was rendered for the defendant, and an appeal taken by the city.\nIt is unnecessary to discuss the various points raised by appellant on this record, the real controversy turning upon the true construction of the ordinance alleged to have been violated. It is ordinance numbered four. The eleventh section is as follows: \u2022 \u201c There shall be levied upon every hack-man, drayman, omnibus driver, carter, teamster, cabman or expressman, and all others pursuing a like occupation, the sum of ten dollars for a license.\u201d\nIt is very evident, a tax upon a business, calling or occupation, is the sole object and purpose of this enactment. It could never have been designed that a farmer, driving his team through the streets of the city, should obtain a license so to do, although he would be, pro hao vice, a teamster. The ordinance is aimed at those who make it a business to use hacks, drays, etc., for hire.\nIn this case, the defendant was a farmer, and nothing more, who, on emergency, was employed by a miller to haul some flour to market. He hauled two loads, and that was all of it.\nThis is not like Gartside v. East St. Louis, 43 Ill. 47. There, the business of Gartside was transporting coal in his heavy coal wagons, from within the city to places outside of the city.\nWe do not think the defendant\u2019s case came within the spirit and meaning of this ordinance, and the judgment was right, and must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Krome & Hadley, for the appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The City of Collinsville v. James Cole.\nOrdinance\u2014licensing hackmen, teamster's, etc. An ordinance that \u201cthere shall be levied upon every hackman, drayman, omnibus driver, carter, teamster, cabman or expressman, and all others pursuing a like occupation, the sum of ten dollars for a license,\u201d was held not to embrace a farmer driving his team through the city. The purpose and object of such an ordinance is to impose a tax upon a business, calling or occupation, and not upon one who may occasionally haul a few loads, in an emergency, for another, when that is not his calling.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. William H. Snyder, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Krome & Hadley, for the appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0114-01",
  "first_page_order": 114,
  "last_page_order": 116
}