{
  "id": 2525828,
  "name": "City of El Paso v. William H. Hoagland",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of El Paso v. Hoagland",
  "decision_date": "1906-11-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 4,750",
  "first_page": "401",
  "last_page": "402",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "129 Ill. App. 401"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "108 Ill. App. 565",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2564669
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/108/0565-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1648,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3078059763329831
    },
    "sha256": "ee3d123ae5c50c810458ece46d68278836ecd62ee5ecc600dde13544ed864a2d",
    "simhash": "1:15c0770021283d58",
    "word_count": 292
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:26:23.218976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of El Paso v. William H. Hoagland."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Dibell\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe Circuit Court on appeal from a justice quashed an amended complaint charging a violation of an ordinance of the city of El Paso. The city appealed from that order. We denied a motion to dismiss the'appeal which we understood to be based upon the absenc\u00e9 of a bill of exceptions. This ruling was based upon our conclusion that the complaint was a pleading and that the motion to quash it was like a motion to quash an indictment or like an oral demurrer, and in such cases no bill of exceptions is necessary to preserve the ruling of the court for review. Burke v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 108 Ill. App. 565. But we now find that there is no final judgment in this record. There is no judgment that the suit be dismissed or that defendant go without day. So far as this record shows the suit is still pending in the court below, and that court still has power to permit a further amended complaint to be filed. The order quashing the amended complaint was not an appealable one, and the appeal is therefore premature and will be dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Dibell"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John F. Boswobth, City Attorney, for appellant.",
      "C. G-. Schroedeb and Thomas Kennedy, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of El Paso v. William H. Hoagland.\nGen. No. 4,750.\n1. Final judgment\u2014effect of absence of. Where no final judgment. appears in the record filed on appeal, the appe\u00e1l will be dismissed.\nAction commenced before justice of the peace. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. Geobse W. Patton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1906.\nAppeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed November 9, 1906.\nJohn F. Boswobth, City Attorney, for appellant.\nC. G-. Schroedeb and Thomas Kennedy, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0401-01",
  "first_page_order": 417,
  "last_page_order": 418
}