{
  "id": 2854408,
  "name": "Joseph T. Mellon, Appellant, v. Albert E. Hagen, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mellon v. Hagen",
  "decision_date": "1914-07-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,795",
  "first_page": "486",
  "last_page": "487",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 486"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 2028,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3325354103656236
    },
    "sha256": "7998ce02129a13f87483a52532212ee4516bbac61fc9d4b789302361e1a5cd84",
    "simhash": "1:c0a623a9bc7f960a",
    "word_count": 338
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph T. Mellon, Appellant, v. Albert E. Hagen, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rieger & Rieger, for appellant; George H. Sugrue, of counsel.",
      "Alfred E. Barr, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph T. Mellon, Appellant, v. Albert E. Hagen, Appellee.\nGen. No. 19,795.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Adelor J. Petit, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed July 14, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by Joseph T. Mellon against Albert E. Hagen to rescind a contract of purchase of a one-half interest in a saloon business for fraud, and to dissolve a partnership between the complainant and defendant, and for an accounting, and to set aside a certain note and mortgage given by the complainant to the defendant in part payment for the one-half interest in said business. A general and special demurrer was sustained to the original bill and to four amended bills thereafter filed by leave of court. The demurrer was ordered to stand to the fourth amended bill which was dismissed for want of equity. From the order dismissing the bill for want of equity, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 96*\u2014when bill to rescind for false representations sufficient. A bill to rescind a contract of purchase of a one-half interest in a saloon business and for other relief on the ground that the seller made false and fraudulent representations concerning the income of the business, held to state grounds sufficient to entitle complainant to equitable relief.\n2. Costs, \u00a7 73*\u2014when costs of additional abstract of record taxed against appellee. On appeal from a decree dismissing an amended bill for want of equity, where an additional abstract of record consisting of forty-nine pages sets up the original bill and the several amendments thereto and the special demurrers to such bill and the several amendments, which are wholly unnecessary for a consideration of the case, the cost of such abstract will be taxed against appellee.\nRieger & Rieger, for appellant; George H. Sugrue, of counsel.\nAlfred E. Barr, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0486-01",
  "first_page_order": 512,
  "last_page_order": 513
}