{
  "id": 5371647,
  "name": "T. D. Murdock et al., Appellants, v. The Calgary Colonization Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Murdock v. Calgary Colonization Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-15",
  "docket_number": "Glen. No. 5,850",
  "first_page": "232",
  "last_page": "233",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 232"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 133,
    "char_count": 1538,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "sha256": "8e00916b6a1f8020654d1b2d81b2bfe9159a130fb9e21abb80a30d381984e847",
    "simhash": "1:997a4af649098a1d",
    "word_count": 254
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:25.002075+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "T. D. Murdock et al., Appellants, v. The Calgary Colonization Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. P. Field and Safford & Graham, for appellants.",
      "Brown & Soule, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "T. D. Murdock et al., Appellants, v. The Calgary Colonization Company, Appellee.\nGlen. No. 5,850.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Warren county; the Hon. Robert J. Gbieb, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the April term, 1914.\nAppeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed April 15, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by T. D. Murdock and E. V. Field against The Calgary Colonization Company to recover on a contract for commissions on the sale of land, which contract was oral. There was a plea of the statute of limitations of the State of Manitoba, where the contract was made, and a demurrer thereto which was overruled. Thereafter defendant withdrew its plea of the general issue and plaintiffs elected to stand by their demurrer. Thereupon a judgment for costs was entered in favor of defendant against the plaintiffs. From the judgment, plaintiffs appeal.\nE. P. Field and Safford & Graham, for appellants.\nBrown & Soule, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 278 \u2014when judgment -for costs on overruling a demurrer is not final. A judgment against plaintiffs for costs, where the court overruled plaintiffs\u2019 demurrer to a plea and the plaintiffs elected to stand by their demurrer, held not a final judgment where it did not adjudge that \u201cplaintiffs take nothing by their suit and that defendants go hence without day.\u201d\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0232-02",
  "first_page_order": 278,
  "last_page_order": 279
}