{
  "id": 5779891,
  "name": "Samuel L. Fox v. John Virgin et al.; Samuel L. Fox v. Christopher Hodgson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fox v. Virgin",
  "decision_date": "1882-10-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "513",
  "last_page": "514",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 Ill. App. 513"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. 29",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2579043
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/12/0029-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ill. 271",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2454869
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/32/0271-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill. 634",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        441687
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/19/0634-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ill. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2682851
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/80/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5311941
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/71/0068-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Ill. 388",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5225759
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/48/0388-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 Ill. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 1683,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.104607347782036e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5062382015322129
    },
    "sha256": "1a202d44946282ede4a70a4e358726658492cfcdc931fb42fec8d1107ae682cf",
    "simhash": "1:8edcbd1db6f123de",
    "word_count": 296
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:48.859971+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel L. Fox v. John Virgin et al. Samuel L. Fox v. Christopher Hodgson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe first of these two cases was once before in this court and is reported in 5 Bradwell, 515. The second is for a trespass of a precisely similar nature, and the defense in both cases rests upon the same state of facts. Up to the \u2022year 1874, when appellant first fenced the land, it was a timber tract, vacant and uninclosed. The public could therefore acquire no right to a road over it by use alone for twenty years. Kyle v. Town of Logan, 87 Ill. 67.\nWe are still of the opinion the evidence not only fails to show a road to have been established by dedication, but the evidence shows directly the contrary. When appellant fenced his land he expressly told the public authorities the-purposes for which he left the lanes on two sides of it, and from then until now he has persistently maintained a hostile attitude toward the road. The judgments will therefore be reversed and the causes remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Brown, Kirby & Russell, for appellant;",
      "Messrs. Whitlock, Smith & Crawley, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel L. Fox v. John Virgin et al. Samuel L. Fox v. Christopher Hodgson.\nHighway by prescription. \u2014 The public can acquire no right to a road over vacant and uninclosed land by use alone for twenty years.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Morgan county; the Hon. Cyrus Epler, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed October 24, 1882.\nMessrs. Brown, Kirby & Russell, for appellant;\nthat there must be an intention to dedicate, or acts sufficient to amount to such intention, cited Fox v. Virgin, 5 Bradwell, 515; Kelly v. Chicago, 48 Ill. 388; Princeton v. Templeton, 71 Ill. 68; McIntyre v. Story, 80 Ill. 127; Marcy v. Taylor, 19 Ill. 634; Gentleman v. Soule, 32 Ill. 271; Godfrey v. Alton, 12 Ill. 29.\nMessrs. Whitlock, Smith & Crawley, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0513-01",
  "first_page_order": 509,
  "last_page_order": 510
}