{
  "id": 878262,
  "name": "Edward Wolff, Defendant in Error, v. Mary Schillinger, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wolff v. Schillinger",
  "decision_date": "1910-02-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 14,889",
  "first_page": "91",
  "last_page": "92",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "153 Ill. App. 91"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 2025,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "sha256": "bcaa6e7e235b773b98c3d0326b09f12d9574041964b11a21e7e30b08bf0663aa",
    "simhash": "1:d39f2a7752a3e88b",
    "word_count": 345
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:18.031918+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward Wolff, Defendant in Error, v. Mary Schillinger, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Mack\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff\u2019s claim in this case was based solely on section 3 of the Mechanic\u2019s Lien Law. He as subcontractor supplied goods to one with whom defendant\u2019s husband, on his own behalf and not for his wife, had contracted for the erection of a building on defendant\u2019s lot. She knew of the contract and did not protest in writing against it. There is no proof that she had any knowledge of the subcontract.\nThis section aims to subject a woman\u2019s property to the burden of her husband\u2019s debts under' certain circumstances. If it he constitutional\u2014and somewhat similar provisions have been held invalid in other states\u2014nevertheless its scope cannot be extended by construction or implication.\nIt is not only in that part of the Act that deals with the rights of original, not subcontractors, but by its express words, it gives a lien only to one acting in pursuance of a contract with the husband. Subcontractors are therefore excluded.\nMoreover it gives only a lien on the property; it does not attempt to charge the wife personally. A personal action is therefore inapplicable when the claim is based solely on this statutory provision.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Mack"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McCaskill & Son, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Johf F. Haas, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward Wolff, Defendant in Error, v. Mary Schillinger, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 14,889.\nLiens'\u2014section 3 of Mechanic\u2019s Lien Act construed. A subcontractor is not entitled to a lien against the property of the wife by virtue of the provisions of section 3 of the Mechanic\u2019s Lien Act, because the wife who knew of the principal contract with her husband did not protest in writing against it. A contractor alone is given the right to a lien by this section and he cannot by reason of its provisions maintain a personal action against such wife.\nMechanic\u2019s lien. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago the Hon. Frank E. Reed, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1908.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed February 15, 1910.\nMcCaskill & Son, for plaintiff in error.\nJohf F. Haas, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0091-01",
  "first_page_order": 109,
  "last_page_order": 110
}