Case Name: City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Daniel Baranov, Plaintiff in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1914-10-07
Citations: 189 Ill. App. 25
Docket Number: Gen. No. 19,036
Parties: City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Daniel Baranov, Plaintiff in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 189
Pages: 25–27

Head Matter:
City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Daniel Baranov, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 19,036.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Oscar M. Torrison, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed October 7, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Action by the city of Chicago against Daniel Baranov to recover a penalty for the violation of a city ordinance. No summons, capias or warrant was ever issued in this case against this defendant. He was brought into court on October 17, 1912, without a warrant. On complaint in writing being presented to the court charging him with the violation of a city ordinance he entered his appearance, filed a waiver of trial by jury and moved the court for a postponement of his trial until. October 30, 1912, which motion was allowed, and the cause was adjourned to that date. On that date the parties appeared, the cause was tried and the defendant found guilty, and fined twenty-five dollars and also ordered to pay the costs assessed at six dollars. To reverse the judgment, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Municipal corporations, § 860 —nature of suit to recover penalty for violation of ordinance. A suit to recover a penalty for the violation of a city ordinance is a civil suit, and the rules applicable to criminal proceedings do not apply.
Defendant seeks a reversal on alleged errors in the common-law record alone. He argues three questions only: First, that the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant; second, that to warrant the issue of mesne process for the arrest of a defendant, the complaint upon which such process is based must definitely set forth the offense which is the basis of the complaint; third, that the judgment is void.
Benjamin E. Cohen, for plaintiff in error; H. J. Rosenberg, of counsel.
William H. Sexton and James S. McInerney, for defendant in error; Albert J. W. Appell, of counsel.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Graves
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Municipal corporations, § 863 —when service of process in suit for violation of ordinance waived. In a suit to recover a penalty for violation of an ordinance, the defendant by entering his appearance in the case and participating in the trial of the merits of the charge waives the issuance and service of summons or other process upon him.
3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13 —statement of claim in suit to recover penalty for violation of ordinance. In a suit in the Municipal Court to recover a penalty for violation of a city ordinance, the complaint, if one has been made, may stand as a statement of plaintiff's claim, and if it is not sufficiently definite the defendant may move for a rule on plaintiff to file a more specific statement, as in other cases of the fourth and fifth class under the Municipal Court Act.
4. Municipal corporations, § 863 —sufficiency of complaint charging violation of ordinance. A complaint charging defendant with violating a city ordinance held to sufficiently describe the offense and the ordinance violated, where the ordinance was described by the number of the section of the Municipal Code, and the acts he was charged with doing were also specifically set forth.