{
  "id": 4877843,
  "name": "Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Henry Willenborg et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Illinois Central Railroad v. Willenborg",
  "decision_date": "1884-04-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "508",
  "last_page": "509",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 Ill. App. 508"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "92 Ill. 596",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2739559
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/92/0596-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 Ill. 343",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        831449
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/108/0343-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ill. 423",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2804017
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/103/0423-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 127,
    "char_count": 1181,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.270239832484313e-08,
      "percentile": 0.269952031952442
    },
    "sha256": "701ade09a83068a98ebb67f936a83aaa942c4bdb838295b65c45107e96f982ef",
    "simhash": "1:1461fcab97852393",
    "word_count": 213
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:53.324345+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Henry Willenborg et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe point is made by appellant that Secs. 40 and 41, Ch. 114, R. S., are invalid because repugnant to the constitution.\nSuch a question must be presented to the Supreme Court and we have no jurisdiction to pass upon it. When the point is made in apparent good faith and must be disposed of in order to decide the case, we must upon our own motion decline to consider it. Practice Act, Sec. 89, as amended in 1879; St. L. T. Co. v. Canty, 103 Ill. 423; Marion Co. v. Lear, 108 Ill. 343; Wright v. People, 92 Ill. 596.\nThe appeal will be dismissed with leave to withdraw record, abstracts and briefs.\n\u25a0 Appeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Green & Gilbert, for appellant.",
      "Mr. John C. White and Mr. S. E. Gilmore, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Henry Willenborg et al.\nJurisdiction. \u2014 Where the question of the validity of a statute is involved, this court has no jurisdiction, and when the point is made in apparent good faith and must he disposed of in order to decide the case, the court will upon its own motion decline to consider it. 1\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Effingham county; the Hon. Thos. S. Casey, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed April 18, 1884.\nMessrs. Green & Gilbert, for appellant.\nMr. John C. White and Mr. S. E. Gilmore, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0508-01",
  "first_page_order": 502,
  "last_page_order": 503
}