{
  "id": 2870603,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. G. Frank Lydston, Appellee, v. Maclay Hoyne, State's Attorney, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Lydston v. Hoyne",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,799",
  "first_page": "51",
  "last_page": "53",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 51"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "262 Ill. 82",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4751540
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/262/0082-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2828820
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/182/0042-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 191,
    "char_count": 3039,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3928485792028802
    },
    "sha256": "7ff0c5c40281934e28c7038acafdce240dc2e1aa20a678ae39000c02d7039ccb",
    "simhash": "1:84bd38d074e30397",
    "word_count": 492
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. G. Frank Lydston, Appellee, v. Maclay Hoyne, State\u2019s Attorney, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nAppeal and error, \u00a7 1725 \u2014when former appeal binding. Where a subsequent appeal presents the same suit, with the same parties thereto and with the same question involved as was passed upon and decided in the former appeal, the former adjudication is conclusive upon the parties.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frederick Z. Marx, for appellant.",
      "Stedman & Soelke, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. G. Frank Lydston, Appellee, v. Maclay Hoyne, State\u2019s Attorney, Appellant.\nGen. No. 20,799.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. John Gibbons, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 6, 1915.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nSuit by the People of the State of Illinois on the relation of Gr. Frank Ldyston against Maclay Hoyne, State\u2019s Attorney, seeking to compel the defendant, by mandamus, to sign a petition as State\u2019s Attorney, for leave to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto. The petition alleged, in substance, that certain persons, therein named, were unlawfully elected and acting as trustees for the American Medical Association, an Illinois corporation, not for profit. A general demurrer to the petition, interposed by the defendant, was sustained by the Circuit Court, whereupon the petitioner elected to stand by his petition and appealed to this court. This court (People ex rel. Lydston v. Hoyne, 182 Ill. App. 42) held that the Circuit Court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the petition for mandamus and reversed the judgment of that court and remanded the cause. Thereafter, this court, by stipulation of the parties, set aside the judgment it had entered, overruled the demurrer and entered a final judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus, commanding the defendant, the State\u2019s Attorney of Cook county, to sign the said information in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Thereafter an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court and that court (People ex rel. Lydston v. Hoyne, 262 Ill. 82) held that this court had no jurisdiction, notwithstanding the stipulation of the parties, to enter a judgment overruling the demurrer and awarding the writ, and the judgment of this court was reversed and the cause remanded to this court with directions to enter a judgment in accordance with the one originally entered by this court. Thereafter this court remanded the cause to the Circuit Court- and thereafter that court, in obedience to the judgment of this court, overruled defendant\u2019s demurrer. The latter elected to stand by his demurrer, and a final judgment was entered awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the defendant to sign the information in accordance with the prayer of the petition for mandamus. This appeal followed.\nFrederick Z. Marx, for appellant.\nStedman & Soelke, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0051-01",
  "first_page_order": 77,
  "last_page_order": 79
}