{
  "id": 2599981,
  "name": "W. C. Bradley et al. v. W. H. Martin et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bradley v. Martin",
  "decision_date": "1902-03-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "668",
  "last_page": "669",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "100 Ill. App. 668"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "184 Ill. 613",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3222189
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/184/0613-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2590,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08259188083938485
    },
    "sha256": "59a84d6a2d081e2220e146d94e75f05b7eb39b2fd80e4bf093df52984ddece50",
    "simhash": "1:13ce73b6bcab1e91",
    "word_count": 435
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:58:18.095621+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. C. Bradley et al. v. W. H. Martin et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion per Curiam.\nThis was a petition for mandamus in the Circuit Court of Effingham County, by appellees against appellants, to compel appellants, as president and trustees of the village of Watson, to disconnect from said village certain lands described in the petition. The proceedings in the Circuit Court resulted in a judgment of that court awarding a peremptory writ. From that judgment appellants appealed to this court. Pending this appeal, on May 10, 1901, the legislature passed an act with an emergency clause, entitled \u201c An act in relation to the disconnection of territory from cities and villages, and to repeal an act therein named,\u201d Laws of 1901, p. 96, whereby the act of May 29,1879, which had been held in Young v. Carey, 184 Ill. 613, to be mandatory, was repealed, and it was made discretionary with a city council or board of trustees whether they would disconnect territory upon application of owners thereof, and\u2019 which act provides that \u201c it shall apply to and affect all cases where property has not been disconnected by such city council or trustees of such villages, whether application has been made for disconnection or not.\u201d\nThe Supreme Court of this State has recently had this statute before it for construction and application, in Vance et al. v. Eankin et al., a case in all respects analogous to the one now before us, and in an opinion handed down February 21,1902, hold that \u201c the statute under which it is sought to coerce the appellants to disconnect the territory described in the petition having been repealed since the trial in the Circuit Court, and there being now no statute in force requiring them to make such disconnection,\u201d the judgment of the Circuit Court commanding them to do so should be reversed. This case is binding upon us and is conclusive of the case at bar.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court of Effingham County is reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Opinion per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. C. Bradley et al. v. W. H. Martin et al.\n1. Disconnection of Territory\u2014Judgment Requiring Disconnection of, Should he Reversed When Statute Giving the Right is Repealed. \u2014Where the statute under which it is sought to coerce a village to disconnect territory described in the petition, has been repealed since the trial of the case, and there being no statute in force requiring such disconnection, a judgment commanding the municipal authority to do so should be reversed.\nMandamus, to disconnect territory, etc. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Effingham County; the Hon. William M. Farmer, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the February term, 1901.\nBeversed.\nOpinion filed March 3, 1902."
  },
  "file_name": "0668-01",
  "first_page_order": 694,
  "last_page_order": 695
}