{
  "id": 2735239,
  "name": "Ted Kallish et al., Appellees, v. Samuel Polakow, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kallish v. Polakow",
  "decision_date": "1911-07-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,629",
  "first_page": "591",
  "last_page": "592",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "162 Ill. App. 591"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 1858,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.515,
    "sha256": "00b48f2ac166c503a378a01cb9ebcb2ab6a1fe1ab7b8c8c9379c0cbfd2b8650f",
    "simhash": "1:504319ff34271f88",
    "word_count": 315
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:35.474007+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ted Kallish et al., Appellees, v. Samuel Polakow, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn the matter of the interlocutory injunction herein appealed from, we have given careful attention to the record and the arguments of counsel made thereon, orally and in writing. But we do not think it.a case in which this court should at its present stage discuss either the facts as they are made to appear in the pleadings and affidavits on which the master\u2019s report and the order of the court were based or the law applicable thereto.\nThe injunction granted was a temporary one pendente lite. We think it was a proper use of the chancellor\u2019s discretion to grant the injunction to preserve the status quo until the final disposition of the cause. The complainant\u2019s bill, in our opinion, states a suitable case for relief, and the affidavits an interference with complainant\u2019s rights under the construction we place on the lease.\nWe deem it best to affirm this order in the terms in which it now stands. A final disposition of the cause will supersede it in accordance with the chancellor\u2019s views of the equities on a full hearing, and our decision goes no farther than to approve his order as a proper one in this stage of the case.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Max M. Grossman and Peter Sissman, for appellant.",
      "Whitman & Horner, for appellees; Lloyd C. Whitman, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ted Kallish et al., Appellees, v. Samuel Polakow, Appellant.\nGen. No. 17,629.\nInjunctions\u2014propriety to maintain status quo. Held, that it was within the discretion of the chancellor to grant the preliminary injunction in this case to maintain the status quo, and that the exercise of such discretion would not be interfered with.\nBill for injunction. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William Fenimore Cooper, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 10, 1911.\nMax M. Grossman and Peter Sissman, for appellant.\nWhitman & Horner, for appellees; Lloyd C. Whitman, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0591-01",
  "first_page_order": 611,
  "last_page_order": 612
}