{
  "id": 2647861,
  "name": "Ohio Oil Company, Appellee, v. Thomas Scott et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ohio Oil Co. v. Scott",
  "decision_date": "1909-03-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "183",
  "last_page": "184",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 Ill. App. 183"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 2233,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.503,
    "sha256": "3ad05ee541342773da17ceccbb4da8cda9d043b0d9ec8594a3bd9a88fd953b12",
    "simhash": "1:96b5f224ffe8433c",
    "word_count": 374
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:09:17.407031+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ohio Oil Company, Appellee, v. Thomas Scott et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Me. Justice Cbeighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nRule 25 of this court requires that \u201cThe brief of appellant or plaintiff in error shall contain in the beginning a concise statement of the case, including in a general way, the form of action, the substance of the pleadings, without detail, the substance of the evidence, omitting the name of witnesses and all other details, the judgment and rulings of the trial court complained of.\u201d Nowhere in appellants\u2019 brief has there been any attempt to comply with this rule in any respect. In the alleged abstract, twenty-three pages are covered with the detailed verbiage of the bill, amendments, motions, demurrers, answers and exceptions. The presentation of the case is such that we do not feel called upon to state and develop it in our opinion.\nThe proceeding is in chancery, and appears to be a bill in the nature of a bill for specific performance through the exercise of the injunctive power of the court,\u2014\u201cnegative specific performance.\u201d The case was tried by the chancellor on evidence produced in open court; the court found that \u201call the material allegations in the amended bill are true\u201d and decreed the relief prayed. And we think the evidence warrants the finding and decree.\nCounsel for appellant says: \u201cWe believe that appellee had a complete and adequate remedy at law, and that it was error in the trial court in overruling demurrer filed to complainant\u2019s bill,\u201d but he does not disclose wherein the bill is insufficient or defective, nor suggest any complete or adequate remedy at law.\nNo error in this record has been pointed out to us that will warrant a reversal of the decree. The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Me. Justice Cbeighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. E. McG-aughey, for appellants.",
      "Callahan, Jones & Lowe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ohio Oil Company, Appellee, v. Thomas Scott et al., Appellants.\nAppeals atto ebbobs\u2014when erroneous assignment will not he considered. Unless the brief and argument conform to the rules and practice the Appellate Court will not consider assignments of error.\nBill in chancery. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lawrence county; the Hon. P. A. Pearce, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the August term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 4, 1909.\nJ. E. McG-aughey, for appellants.\nCallahan, Jones & Lowe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0183-01",
  "first_page_order": 201,
  "last_page_order": 202
}
