{
  "id": 2490207,
  "name": "Erik Nordstrom v. City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Nordstrom v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1905-04-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 11,606",
  "first_page": "465",
  "last_page": "466",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "119 Ill. App. 465"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "94 Ill. App. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5291045
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/94/0248-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2163,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47109908724408256
    },
    "sha256": "af0ce62630760f15aa0f5a354252d2fd5f5e5ac072c76b3599091a0649fa47b4",
    "simhash": "1:6763c72a684794b4",
    "word_count": 368
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:07:30.746032+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Erik Nordstrom v. City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per curiam.\nThis is a writ of error prosecuted to reverse an order dismissing for want of prosecution a suit brought by plaintiff in error. The cause of action as stated in the declaration apparently is that the city\u2019s representatives \u201cagreed to settle\u201d a suit brought by plaintiff for $25,000, and that relying on such promises, plaintiff \u201ctook no further pains with his said suit and allowed it to be dismissedyet the city has not paid the amount so agreed upon, to wit, $25,000. The declaration was demurred to. The suit was dismissed on the regular call of the trial calendar. Plaintiff moved to reinstate and filed an affidavit in which he states that when the suit at bar was called for trial he, by reason of his attorney\u2019s negligence, was not aware that it was on the trial call that day. The motion to reinstate was denied. Ho formal exceptions to the action of the trial court are preserved. Plaintiff appears as his own attorney.\nIt is evident the declaration stated no sufficient legal cause of action. The suit was dismissed at plaintiff\u2019s costs upon regular call, and it was discretionary with the trial court whether to reinstate or not. Upon the case as stated in the declaration there was certainly no abuse of such discretion in denying plaintiff\u2019s motion. Ho exceptions having been preserved no question is presented which this court can consider. Lanyon v. Michigan Buggy Co., 94 Ill. App. 248. The judgment must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Erik Nordstrom, plaintiff in error, per se.",
      "Michael F. Sullivan and Frank J. Carr, for defendant in error; Edgar Bronson Tolman, Corporation Counsel, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Erik Nordstrom v. City of Chicago.\nGen. No. 11,606.\n1. Re-instatembnt\u2014when discretion in refusing, not abused. Where an action was dismissed for want of prosecution upon the regular call of the court\u2019s docket, a refusal to re-instate is not improper where the declaration in the cause did not set up a cause of action,\nAction on the case for personal injuries. Error to the Circuit. Court of Cook County; the Hon. Abner Smith, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1904.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 5, 1905.\nErik Nordstrom, plaintiff in error, per se.\nMichael F. Sullivan and Frank J. Carr, for defendant in error; Edgar Bronson Tolman, Corporation Counsel, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0465-01",
  "first_page_order": 483,
  "last_page_order": 484
}