{
  "id": 2847042,
  "name": "Carl Strum, Appellee, v. J. M. Berry and L. C. Berry, Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Strum v. Berry",
  "decision_date": "1914-02-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,457",
  "first_page": "114",
  "last_page": "115",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 114"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 121,
    "char_count": 1446,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.515,
    "sha256": "7b2a5904bab8291f76b1c598b02b6272d29778b95dbd9a6212127012e374df0b",
    "simhash": "1:5748bbfa752e86d9",
    "word_count": 226
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Carl Strum, Appellee, v. J. M. Berry and L. C. Berry, Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Miller, Gorham & Wales, for appellants.",
      "Hehry & Robihsoh, for- appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Carl Strum, Appellee, v. J. M. Berry and L. C. Berry, Appellants.\nGen. No. 18,457.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Kick-ham Scanean, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 2, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nProceeding between Carl Strum against J. M. Berry and L. C. Berry in connection with the controversy narrated in a proceeding between the same parties reported on page 113, ante. The defendants to the complainant\u2019s bill filed a cross-bill praying that the complainant be enjoined from prosecuting a suit instituted by complainant against the defendants growing out of the same matters alleged in the chancery suit. An injunction issued as prayed. Thereafter a demurrer to the cross-bill was sustained and the injunction dissolved and complainant filed a suggestion of damages. From a finding of the master allowing complainant two hundred and fifty dollars damages for solicitor\u2019s fees, complainants in the cross-bill appeal.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nInjunction, \u00a7 321*\u2014when allowance of solicitor's fees not excessive. On assessment of damages on dissolution of an injunction issued upon a cross-bill, allowance to complainant of two hundred and fifty dollars as solicitor\u2019s fees held not excessive.\nMiller, Gorham & Wales, for appellants.\nHehry & Robihsoh, for- appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0114-01",
  "first_page_order": 140,
  "last_page_order": 141
}