{
  "id": 2660299,
  "name": "Julia Deweese, Appellee, v. Jacob Husmann, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Deweese v. Husmann",
  "decision_date": "1908-11-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "55",
  "last_page": "56",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "146 Ill. App. 55"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 1984,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "sha256": "d3fdb8067199d61fb3fbfbae448c995ff8a98821c40617e9ac009dfa56cb17aa",
    "simhash": "1:547d32b0bad93638",
    "word_count": 346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:03:54.613219+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Julia Deweese, Appellee, v. Jacob Husmann, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Ramsay\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nJulia Deweese recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court of Mason county in the sum of fifty dollars against Jacob Husmann for damages alleged to have resulted to the premises of Deweese by the action of Husmann in so filling his own lot as to set the water back upon the lot of Deweese. Husmann appealed.\nThe merits of the controversy are so palpably in favor of the claim as made by Deweese that no extended discussion of the case can be of any avail.\nThe natural course of the water was from the premises of Deweese upon and across the lot of Husmann, who in improving his lot and in building a sidewalk upon the street line thereof, so raised and elevated his own premises, as to overflow the lot of Deweese and cause the damages sued for.\nHusmann insists that, because Deweese made no objection at the time the improvements were made and the filling done that caused the overflow, Deweese is now estopped from recovering any damages resulting from the doing of such work.\nWe do not so understand the rule. \u201cIt is no bar to an action for the recovery of damages, that the plaintiff has made no objection or protest against the creation or continuance of a nuisance.\u201d Amer. & Eng. Encyclopedia Law, Second Ed., Vol. 21, page 723.\nThe damages recovered were moderate in amount and the judgment was right.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Ramsay"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Blinn & Covey, for appellant.",
      "W. E. Stone and Stone & Oglevie, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Julia Deweese, Appellee, v. Jacob Husmann, Appellant.\nNuisances\u2014wiiat does not lar action for damages arising from. It is no bar to an action for the recovery of damages that the plaintiff has made no objection or protest against the creation or continuance of a nuisance from which the injury and resulting damages arose.\nTrespass. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mason county; the Hon. Guy R. Williams, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 17, 1908.\nBlinn & Covey, for appellant.\nW. E. Stone and Stone & Oglevie, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0055-01",
  "first_page_order": 97,
  "last_page_order": 98
}