City of Chicago v. Simonetti

Appellate Court of Illinois

City of Chicago v. Simonetti

203 Ill. App. 279

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 22, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,600

StatusPublished

This text of 203 Ill. App. 279 (City of Chicago v. Simonetti) 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. Simonetti, 203 Ill. App. 279 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 27*—how action of trial court in refusing change of venue should he preserved for review. Under section 23 of the Municipal Court Act (J. & A. U 3335), in order to secure a review of the trial court’s action in refusing a change of venue, the plaintiff in error should make a correct statement of such action, as required by the statute, and not present it by a bill of exceptions, for which the 'statute makes no provision in such matter. 2. Venue, § 34*—when error in refusing motion for change of is waived. Participating in the trial of a case after refusal of a motion for a change of venue waives any error of the court in such refusal. 3. Attorney and client, § 11*-—when attorney may not take acknowledgment. An affidavit for a change of venue sworn to before an attorney in the case should not be received or considered. 4. Municipal corporations, § 867*—when presumed that findings of trial court are correct. In the absence from the record of a municipal ordinance upon which a prosecution is based, and of which the court cannot take judicial notice, the findings of the trial court will be presumed correct. 5. Appeal and error, § 966*—binding effect of record. The Appellate Court is bound by the record as to the proceedings before the trial court.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 27*—how action of trial court in refusing change of venue should he preserved for review. Under section 23 of the Municipal Court Act (J. & A. U 3335), in order to secure a review of the trial court’s action in refusing a change of venue, the plaintiff in error should make a correct statement of such action, as required by the statute, and not present it by a bill of exceptions, for which the 'statute makes no provision in such matter. 2. Venue, § 34*—when error in refusing motion for change of is waived. Participating in the trial of a case after refusal of a motion for a change of venue waives any error of the court in such refusal. 3. Attorney and client, § 11*-—when attorney may not take acknowledgment. An affidavit for a change of venue sworn to before an attorney in the case should not be received or considered. 4. Municipal corporations, § 867*—when presumed that findings of trial court are correct. In the absence from the record of a municipal ordinance upon which a prosecution is based, and of which the court cannot take judicial notice, the findings of the trial court will be presumed correct. 5. Appeal and error, § 966*—binding effect of record. The Appellate Court is bound by the record as to the proceedings before the trial court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 Ill. App. 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-chicago-v-simonetti-illappct-1917.