{ "id": 8499447, "name": "Lorenz von der Leck, Appellee, v. Baldwin County Colonization Company, Impleaded with Henry C. Bartling, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Leck v. Baldwin County Colonization Co.", "decision_date": "1913-03-06", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,147", "first_page": "93", "last_page": "95", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "178 Ill. App. 93" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "121 Ill. App. 592", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2494346 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "593" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/121/0592-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Ill. App. 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2556446 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "55" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/110/0050-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ill. App. 378", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5117857 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/50/0378-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ill. App. 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 859846 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/37/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 Ill. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3336357 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "249" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/223/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 Ill. App. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 8499760 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/166/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 Ill. App. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5292531 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "309" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/94/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 Ill. App. 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5296003 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "428" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/95/0427-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 291, "char_count": 4565, "ocr_confidence": 0.507, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0377487713287331e-07, "percentile": 0.54996507518392 }, "sha256": "1b4da1f013963e2393d4b9b2d8ddc744412c040f14a7ed975a4f28aa2b3d4d50", "simhash": "1:f7e7e8d15026be05", "word_count": 751 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:56:36.464744+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Lorenz von der Leck, Appellee, v. Baldwin County Colonization Company, Impleaded with Henry C. Bartling, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Circuit Court of Cook county, entered November 16, 1912, granting an injunction against appellant. The order was that appellant, its agents, employes and attorneys be enjoined and restrained, until the further order of the court, from foreclosing, selling, encumbering or otherwise disposing of two certain notes and real estate mortgages executed by appellee and Louise von der Leek, described in the amended and supplemental bill of complaint of appellee. The order was entered .on condition that appellee file an injunction bond in the sum of $1,200 to be approved by the court, which bond was so approved and filed.\nThe original bill was filed September 27, 1912, and sought only to obtain an accounting from appellant and Henry C. Bartling. On November 14, 1912, ap-pellee filed his amended and supplemental bill of complaint in which he prayed, among other things, for a preliminary injunction.\nAppellant seeks a reversal of the interlocutory order on the sole ground that the amended and supplemental bill is not properly verified. The affidavit is as follows:\n\u201cState op IlliNOis,] County of Cook. 3\nLorenz v. d. Leek first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that he is the complainant, in the original bill of complaint and in this, your petitioner\u2019s supplemental bill; that he has read the original bill herein and the amended bill of complaint, and this, your petitioner\u2019s supplemental bill of complaint and that he knows the contents thereof and that the allegations therein are true of his own knowledge, except wherein stated t.o be upon information and belief, and as to those facts so stated to be upon information and belief your petitioner verily believes them to be true.\nLORENZ v. d. Leck. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of November, A. D. 1912.\nMarcus J. ColdeN,\nNotary Public.\n(Seal)\u201d\n\u201cTo warrant the issuing of a temporary injunction upon the allegations of a bill of complaint, these allegations must, in their material parts, be verified, and such verification must be positive and not merely upon information and belief.\u201d Crawford-Adsit Co. v. Bell, 95 Ill. App. 427, 428; 2 High on Inj. (4th Ed.), sea 1567; Board of Trade v. Riordan, 94 Ill. App. 298, 309; Port Dearborn Safe Deposit Co. v. Rigdon, 166 Ill. App. 334. Upon examination of the amended and supplemental bill we find that, while some of the allegations are stated to be upon information and belief, the material allegations are positively made. By the above affidavit appellee swears that the allegations of the amended and supplemental bill \u201care true of his own knowledge, except wherein stated to he upon information and belief, and as to those facts so stated to be upon information and belief yonr petitioner verily believes them to be true.\u201d We are of the opinion that the bill is sufficiently verified. Counsel for appellant cites several cases which he says support his contention. Upon examination of those cases, and other similar ones, we find that the affidavits were held to be defective \u201cin failing to distinguish between matters which were stated upon complainant\u2019s own knowledge and those which were stated on information and belief.\u201d Christian Hospital v. People, 223 Ill. 244, 249; Siegmund v. Ascher, 37 Ill. App. 122; Stirlen v. Neustadt, 50 Ill. App. 378. We do not think that the affidavit to the bill in this ease is defective in this particular. Parish v. Vance, 110 Ill. App. 50, 55; James E. Pepper Distributing Co. v. McLeod, 121 Ill. App. 592, 593.\nThe order is affirmed.-\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley" } ], "attorneys": [ "W. J. Lavery, for appellant.", "StedmaN & Soelke, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Lorenz von der Leck, Appellee, v. Baldwin County Colonization Company, Impleaded with Henry C. Bartling, Appellant.\nGen. No. 19,147.\n1. INJUNCTION \u2014 positive verification of material facts necessary. To warrant the issuing of a temporary injunction upon the allegations of a bill of complaint, the verification of its material parts must he positive and not merely upon information and belief.\n2. Injunction \u2014 verification of material facts sufficient. A hill of complaint which is sworn to he true except as to allegations made upon information and belief, in which the material allegations are positively made, is sufficiently verified for the issuance of an injunction.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richaed S. Tuthiix, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate\nCourt at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 6, 1913.\nW. J. Lavery, for appellant.\nStedmaN & Soelke, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0093-01", "first_page_order": 111, "last_page_order": 113 }