{
  "id": 2632429,
  "name": "C. E. Elkins, Defendant in Error, v. Mary Schillinger et al., Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Elkins v. Schillinger",
  "decision_date": "1909-11-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 14,657",
  "first_page": "571",
  "last_page": "572",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "151 Ill. App. 571"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "233 Ill. 411",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5317797
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/73/0536-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 Ill. App. 337",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2510851
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/126/0337-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 161,
    "char_count": 2254,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08293012449760584
    },
    "sha256": "663fdb38ddc67b88254e56ea43c9869af3d0463a7d0636241a8fb2d9d2e70cc5",
    "simhash": "1:6b729627520f5ecc",
    "word_count": 385
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:46:56.526793+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. E. Elkins, Defendant in Error, v. Mary Schillinger et al., Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe defendant in error, Elkins, brought an action in the Municipal Court of Chicago under section 28 of the lien law to recover $33.50 alleged to he due him for labor on a building of Mary Schillinger, plaintiff in er-tor, as a subcontractor. The court found in favor of the plaintiff and entered judgment for the amount sued for, and five dollars attorneys \u2019 fees in the ease. Errors are assigned on the judgment.\nUpon an examination of the record we find that the judgment is erroneous upon the merits, and for the reason that it includes an attorney\u2019s fee.\nIn our opinion the evidence does not, under the law, warrant the conclusion that defendant in error is entitled to a mechanic\u2019s lien on the premises. The plaintiff must prove, in actions brought under this statute, that he has a lien on the premises in order to entitle him to a joint judgment against the owner and contractor. The plaintiff failed'to make this proof. The evidence shows that he is not entitled to a lien. Nb indebtedness is shown and found from the owner to the contractor. The judgment is therefore erroneous. Merritt v. Crane Co., 126 Ill. App. 337; Culver v. Elwell, 73 Ill. 536.\nThe judgment is also erroneous because it allows an attorney\u2019s fee. Manowski v. Stephan, 233 Ill. 411.\nThe judgment is reversed but the cause is not re- \u2022 manded.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McCasexll & Sou, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "No appearance by defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. E. Elkins, Defendant in Error, v. Mary Schillinger et al., Plaintiffs in Error.\nGen. No. 14,657.\n1. Mechanics\u2019 lien\u2014what essential to joint judgment against owner and contractor. Under section 28 of the mechanics\u2019 lien law, the subcontractor must prove that he is entitled to a lien on the premises in question in order to entitle him to a joint judgment against the owner and contractor.\n2. Mechanics\u2019 lien\u2014erroneous to render judgment for attorney's fee. Eeld, that the rendition of a judgment for attorney\u2019s fee in an action brought under the mechanics\u2019 lien act is erroneous.\nMechanics\u2019 lien. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frank Crowe, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1908.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed November 19, 1909.\nMcCasexll & Sou, for plaintiffs in error.\nNo appearance by defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0571-01",
  "first_page_order": 607,
  "last_page_order": 608
}
