City of Chicago v. Lowenthal

Appellate Court of Illinois

City of Chicago v. Lowenthal

146 Ill. App. 570, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 398

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedFebruary 15, 1909

DocketGen. No. 14,506

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 146 Ill. App. 570 (City of Chicago v. Lowenthal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Chicago v. Lowenthal, 146 Ill. App. 570, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 398 (Ill. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action brought by the city of Chicago for an alleged violation of the junk-shop ordinance, so-called. The appellee is a large dealer, and a dealer in large quantities only—car lots principally—in old and new metals, rubber and rags. He is a wholesale dealer in these commodities, the largest in the city of Chicago. He did not procure a license to keep a “junk shop” or “junk wagon,” because he claimed not to be, in the language of the ordinance in question, ‘ ‘ exercising, carrying on, or engaging in the business of keeping a junk shop, or what is commonly called a junk shop.”

The court below agreed with him, and so do we. The case is not distinguishable from West Side Metal Refining Company v. City of Chicago, 140 Ill. App. 599. We are of the same opinion as when that case was decided.

The judgment of the Criminal Court of Cook county is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action brought by the city of Chicago for an alleged violation of the junk-shop ordinance, so-called. The appellee is a large dealer, and a dealer in large quantities only—car lots principally—in old and new metals, rubber and rags. He is a wholesale dealer in these commodities, the largest in the city of Chicago. He did not procure a license to keep a “junk shop” or “junk wagon,” because he claimed not to be, in the language of the ordinance in question, ‘ ‘ exercising, carrying on, or engaging in the business of keeping a junk shop, or what is commonly called a junk shop.”

The court below agreed with him, and so do we. The case is not distinguishable from West Side Metal Refining Company v. City of Chicago, 140 Ill. App. 599. We are of the same opinion as when that case was decided.

The judgment of the Criminal Court of Cook county is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 Ill. App. 570, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-chicago-v-lowenthal-illappct-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack