{
  "id": 2451637,
  "name": "The County of Cook, a Body Politic and Corporate, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mac Hoytt, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "County of Cook v. Hoytt",
  "decision_date": "1963-04-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 48,930",
  "first_page": "122",
  "last_page": "124",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 Ill. App. 2d 122"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "148 NE2d 787",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill2d 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2775022
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/13/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 NE2d 534",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill App2d 133",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5215703
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/26/0133-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 NE2d 371",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill2d 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2775284
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "49"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/13/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 NE 473",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 Ill 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3356400
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "202"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/217/0200-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 280,
    "char_count": 3277,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.302720229484814e-07,
      "percentile": 0.871990027217803
    },
    "sha256": "46eced4c33f6d5bfbf7738c1ac7703f62488566d8aacb0a4462523eceb40a28b",
    "simhash": "1:0dbbd161745c39d8",
    "word_count": 552
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:34.759357+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BTTRMAN, P. J. and MURPHY, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "The County of Cook, a Body Politic and Corporate, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mac Hoytt, Defendant-Ap-pellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff\u2019s complaint contained two counts, Count I alleging that defendant maintained his house trailer in violation of the County Zoning Ordinance, and Count II alleging that defendant\u2019s maintenance of the trailer constituted a nuisance. Both counts sought injunctive relief. Defendant\u2019s answer denied the charges of the entire complaint.\nPlaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to Count I supported by an affidavit, and defendant filed a counter-affidavit.\nOn May 18,1962, the chancellor found that plaintiff\u2019s motion was not well founded in law; that defendant had a legal right to maintain his premises as a nonconforming use under the County Zoning Ordinance; and ordered \u201c[t]hat the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment on Count I of the complaint be and the same is hereby denied.\u201d\nOn May 29, 1962, on motion of plaintiff, the court entered another order amending the order of May 18 by adding:\n\u201cIt is further ordered that Count I of the complaint filed herein be dismissed for want of equity.\u201d\nPlaintiff seeks to appeal from both, of these orders.\nWe believe that neither order is a final, appealable order, and we are, therefore, without jurisdiction to' determine the appeal, despite the fact that neither party has called attention to our lack of authority. (Ill Rev Stats, c 110, \u00a7 77.) Paced with a similar situation, the- Supreme Court stated in Chicago Portrait Co. v. Chicago Crayon Co., 217 Ill 200, 202, 75 NE 473:\nA court finding it has no jurisdiction of a cause should dismiss it of its own motion, and the Appellate Court should have dismissed the appeal of its own motion at appellant\u2019s cost.\nSee also The Village of Niles v. Szczesny, 13 Ill2d 45, 49, 147 NE2d 371, and Johnson v. City of Rockford, 26 Ill App2d 133, 169 NE2d 534.\nSince determination of the rights of the parties under Count I of the complaint disposes of less than all of the claims for relief involved in the action, the order making such disposition cannot be final and appealable without an additional \u201cexpress finding that there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal.\u201d (Ill Rev Stats, c 110, \u00a7 50(2)..) Piecemeal appeals are thus prohibited unless the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, makes the finding indicated. (Afiola v. Nigro, 13 Ill2d 200, 148 NE2d 787.)\nIn the case at bar, the chancellor may or may not make such a finding prior to determination of the action under Count II. We express no opinion as to how he should exercise his discretion in this regard. If, however, the subject matter of this appeal were again to be presented to- this court, the abstracts and briefs now on file could be transferred to the file of the new appeal without reprint.\nAppeal dismissed.\nBTTRMAN, P. J. and MURPHY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Edward J. Hladis, Chief of Civil Division, and Joseph V. Roddy, Ronald Butler and Thomas A. Hett, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Reynolds and Helm, of Chicago (Earl R. Reynolds, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The County of Cook, a Body Politic and Corporate, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mac Hoytt, Defendant-Ap-pellee.\nGen. No. 48,930.\nFirst District, First Division.\nApril 29, 1963.\nDaniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Edward J. Hladis, Chief of Civil Division, and Joseph V. Roddy, Ronald Butler and Thomas A. Hett, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant.\nReynolds and Helm, of Chicago (Earl R. Reynolds, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0122-01",
  "first_page_order": 132,
  "last_page_order": 134
}