{
  "id": 2815381,
  "name": "Harry S. Mecartney, Appellant, v. City of Chicago, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mecartney v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1913-01-27",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,876",
  "first_page": "23",
  "last_page": "24",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "177 Ill. App. 23"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "160 Ill. App. 93",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2719405
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/160/0093-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 Ill. App. 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2638373
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/150/0275-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 140,
    "char_count": 1819,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3393060753735063
    },
    "sha256": "185637f765333efa7ba647ccd56844aac3e444c3fd8e466e9b11a27f949d8049",
    "simhash": "1:9fd55ac2a44b1200",
    "word_count": 305
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:19:36.081100+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harry S. Mecartney, Appellant, v. City of Chicago, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn this case the plaintiff, here the appellant, obtained a judgment in the Circuit Court of Cook county against the defendant, here the appellee, for $5,650.29. On an appeal therefrom by the City of Chicago this court reversed the said judgment' on the ground that the amended declaration stated no cause of action, and remanded the cause to the Circuit Court with directions to that court to sustain the demurrer to the said amended declaration; Mecartney v. City of Chicago, 150 Ill. App. 275, to which we refer for a full and complete statement of the case. The Circuit Court in compliance with said directions sustained said demurrer and, the plaintiff electing to stand by his said amended declaration, entered judgment against the plaintiff, from which said judgment the plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.\nThe questions presented on this appeal need not be discussed, for they are the same questions passed\u2019 upon by the court on the former appeal. The decision of this court thereon is the law of the case, not only binding on the trial court, but also on this court. Delta Bag Co. v. Kearns, 160 Ill. App. 93, and cases there cited.\nThe judgment is accordingly affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Oliver & Mecartney and Enoch J. Price, for appellant.",
      "George A. Mason and Edgar R. Hart, for appellee; Edward J. Brundage, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harry S. Mecartney, Appellant, v. City of Chicago, Appellee.\nGen. No. 16,876.\nAppeals and errors\u2014second appeal. Questions passed upon in a former appeal will not he discussed, since the former decision is binding on the trial court and court of review.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Jesse A. Baldwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1910.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 27, 1913.\nOliver & Mecartney and Enoch J. Price, for appellant.\nGeorge A. Mason and Edgar R. Hart, for appellee; Edward J. Brundage, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0023-01",
  "first_page_order": 41,
  "last_page_order": 42
}