{
  "id": 5383083,
  "name": "William T. Huguley, Appellant, v. Henry Hamburg et al., Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Huguley v. Hamburg",
  "decision_date": "1914-12-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,962",
  "first_page": "27",
  "last_page": "28",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 27"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 173,
    "char_count": 1723,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "sha256": "92ef8cf3cd24c2999bcfc2a5fbb1e0fcc5326139d67bab9a362d0d0dd6cb3d67",
    "simhash": "1:c952ff151618a19d",
    "word_count": 291
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William T. Huguley, Appellant, v. Henry Hamburg et al., Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lewis, Folsom & Streeter and J. G. Grossberg, for appellant.",
      "Winston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, for appellees; Walter H. Jacobs and Charles J. McFadden, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William T. Huguley, Appellant, v. Henry Hamburg et al., Appellees.\nGen. No. 19,962.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. M. L. McKinley, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 31, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nThe bill filed in this case recites the same facts, in substance, as those set up in the bill filed in the ease of Huguley v. Hamburg, reported on p. 21, ante, and the legal questions involved are substantially the same. The only difference between the cases is that the bill in this case sets up the facts in more detail and also avers sundry additional facts for the purpose of showing that the officers of the Princeton Company refused to allow certain transfers of appellant\u2019s stock to be made upon the books of the company, as requested by the complaining stockholders, and prays for more extended relief. A general demurrer was filed to the bill on the sole ground of want of equity on its face, which demurrer was sustained, and therefore the decision in the case above mentioned held controlling.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nAppeal and errob, \u00a7 422 -\u2014when hill cannot he complained of as \u25a0 multifarious. A bill cannot be complained of on review as multifarious, where such, question was not raised either in the trial court or the reviewing court.\nLewis, Folsom & Streeter and J. G. Grossberg, for appellant.\nWinston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, for appellees; Walter H. Jacobs and Charles J. McFadden, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0027-01",
  "first_page_order": 71,
  "last_page_order": 72
}