{
  "id": 872885,
  "name": "Dyers & Cleaners' Union No. 10,168 v. Oswald Schuettauff",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dyers & Cleaners' Union No. 10,168 v. Schuettauff",
  "decision_date": "1904-03-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 11,277",
  "first_page": "422",
  "last_page": "423",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "113 Ill. App. 422"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill. App. 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 206",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        869047
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/62/0206-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5069484
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/44/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 Ill. App. 658",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        861699
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/31/0658-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 1940,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.211405838620903e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38461103330734725
    },
    "sha256": "9ca56f85a985019140ff60ae42f5ae1995d714d7a6e21da6357ef475032fb258",
    "simhash": "1:ad5176e221d93670",
    "word_count": 336
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:42.184794+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dyers & Cleaners\u2019 Union No. 10,168 v. Oswald Schuettauff."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Ball\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from an order overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction granted on an interlocutory motion.\nThe right of appeal is purely statutory. The act under which this appeal is taken is that of June 14, 1887, entitled, \u201c An act to provide for appeals from interlocutory orders granting injunctions or appointing receivers.\u201d The language of the act provides for an appeal in such a case as is here presented; but its title does not include \u201c an order overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction.\u201d Section 13, article 4 of the Constitution of 1870 declares that \u201cMo act hereafter passed shall embrace more than one. subject, and that shall be expressed in the title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be embraced in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.\u201d It has been held this provision so limits the wording.of the act that an appeal such as is here attempted to be taken is void and of no effect. Taylor v. Kirby, 31 Ill. App. 658; City of Chicago v. Beck, 44 Ill. App. 47; Black Diamond Co. v. Waterloo, 62 Ill. App. 206. The case of Hately v. Myers, 96 Ill. App. 218, holds to the contrary; but under the authorities cited we cannot follow it.\nThe appeal is dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Ball"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel W. Scanlan, for appellant; William E. Cloyes, of counsel.",
      "Ossian Cameron and Philip Koehler, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dyers & Cleaners\u2019 Union No. 10,168 v. Oswald Schuettauff.\nGen. No. 11,277.\n1. Motion to dissolve\u2014when order upon, cannot he appealed from. An appeal cannot be maintained from an interlocutory order overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction.\nAppeal from order overruling motion to dissolve injunction. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Axel Chytraus, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1903.\nAppeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed March 31, 1904.\nDaniel W. Scanlan, for appellant; William E. Cloyes, of counsel.\nOssian Cameron and Philip Koehler, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0422-01",
  "first_page_order": 438,
  "last_page_order": 439
}