"Respondents cite Glaum v. Cummings, decided by the Illinois Appellate Court, and have supplied the full text of the opinion. It is unreported but the syllabi are found in 317 Ill. App. 655 [ 47 N.E.2d 359]. Judgment was entered on a directed verdict for the defendants, which was affirmed.
In short, on the basis of this record, we can not conclude that there was a custom or usage then prevailing in Evanston, or if there was such a custom or usage, that petitioner complied with it. • 10 Finally, it must be noted that even if petitioner had proven that a custom or usage then prevailed in Evanston and that he had complied with it, his argument would be unavailing. For it has been consistently held that a custom can not be invoked to avoid a settled rule or law or to prevail against or overcome a statute and such an alleged custom is therefore not binding. ( Glaum v. Cummings, 317 Ill. App. 655, 47 N.E.2d 359; Vermilion County Production Credit Association v. Izzard, 111 Ill. App.2d 190, 249 N.E.2d 352.) In the instant case, the Evanston ordinance clearly requires the submission of plans adequate to determine compliance with the building code and zoning ordinance. It is also a settled rule of law that a writ of mandamus will issue only upon strict compliance with all necessary preconditions.
Respondents cite Glaum v. Cummings et al., decided by the Illinois Appellate Court, and have supplied the full text of the opinion. It is unreported but the syllabi are found in 317 Ill.App. 655, 47 N.E.2d 359. Judgment was entered on a directed verdict for the defendants, which was affirmed. Glaum was injured while alighting from a street car and his claim of negligence was based on the failure to furnish him with a reasonably safe place to alight, and in failing to stop at the regular stopping place.