{
  "id": 2874655,
  "name": "Albert Lorenz and Arthur Lorenz, trading as Lorenz Brothers, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Harry Bloom et al., trading as Nidetz & Schnitzer, and Bernhard W. Berger, Defendants in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lorenz v. Bloom",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,644",
  "first_page": "40",
  "last_page": "41",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 40"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 1817,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "sha256": "9123a0317b8386758958830845583b6c2d520d0a71d273a984e8ee3ab099f09a",
    "simhash": "1:48790b87c9ab119e",
    "word_count": 299
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Albert Lorenz and Arthur Lorenz, trading as Lorenz Brothers, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Harry Bloom et al., trading as Nidetz & Schnitzer, and Bernhard W. Berger, Defendants in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Mechanics\u2019 hens, \u00a7 147 \u2014what is effect of premature suit. The fact that a suit to enforce a mechanic\u2019s lien is prematurely brought does not destroy the lien of the plaintiffs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D. E. McCracken, for plaintiffs in error; J. H. Perkinson, of counsel.",
      "Louis F. Jacobson, for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Albert Lorenz and Arthur Lorenz, trading as Lorenz Brothers, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Harry Bloom et al., trading as Nidetz & Schnitzer, and Bernhard W. Berger, Defendants in Error.\nGen. No. 20,644.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Mechanics' liens, \u00a7 147 \u2014when proceedings to enforce me premature. A suit to enforce a sub-contractor\u2019s lien brought six days after service of notice of lien on the owner of the premises is premature and should be dismissed without prejudice.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry M. Fisher, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed October 6, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Albert Lorenz and Arthur Lorenz, co-partners, trading as Lorenz Brothers, against Harry Bloom, M. Nidetz and L. Schnitzer, copartners, trading as Nidetz & Schnitzer, and Bernhard W. Berger, under the Mechanic\u2019s Lien Act of 1903 (J. & A. \u00b6 7139 et seq.), to recover $435, with interest thereon from May 17, 1913, alleged to be due to the plaintiffs from the defendants for labor and material furnished by the plaintiffs as subcontractors. The case was tried before the court without a jury, the issues were found against the plaintiffs, and judgment was entered on the finding. This writ of error followed.\nD. E. McCracken, for plaintiffs in error; J. H. Perkinson, of counsel.\nLouis F. Jacobson, for defendants in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0040-01",
  "first_page_order": 66,
  "last_page_order": 67
}