{
  "id": 2968747,
  "name": "Joseph Stocks, Appellee, v. Woodrow-Parker Company. Byron B. Burns, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stocks v. Woodrow-Parker Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "125",
  "last_page": "126",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 125"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 2026,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "sha256": "746d6d3549e090974742bff0b5055f479ee090be6bf313391ca211b1dbe9f063",
    "simhash": "1:4f7f13ec989b34ff",
    "word_count": 339
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph Stocks, Appellee, v. Woodrow-Parker Company. Byron B. Burns, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Injunction, \u00a7 15*\u2014when pendency of suit at law not ground for granting of temporary injunction. The pendency of a suit at law by the complainant to a bill for a temporary injunction enjoining the prosecuting of such suit is not ground for the granting of the injunction, as such suit is under the control of complainant.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. J. Miller, for appellant.",
      "Frank M. Harbaugh, Edward C. Craig, Donald B. Craig and James W. Craig, Jr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph Stocks, Appellee, v. Woodrow-Parker Company. Byron B. Burns, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Injunction, \u00a7 35 \u2014when pendency of suit at law not ground for temporary injunction. The pendency of a suit at law against the complainant to a bill for a temporary injunction enjoining tb.e prosecution of such suit is not ground for the granting of the injunction, where the complainant states in his bill that he had a good defense to such action.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Moultrie county; the Hon. William K. Whitfield, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 27, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by Joseph Stocks, complainant, against Woodrow-Parker Company and Byron B. Bums, defendants, praying that the prosecution of a suit in assumpsit by Joseph Stocks against Woodrow-Parker Company and Bichard S. Woodrow, and a suit in assumpsit by Byron B. Bums against Joseph Stocks to recover on a note executed by Joseph Stocks to Woodrow-Parker Company and indorsed without recourse to Byron B. Bums; that the contract on which the note in the latter case was based and the note be canceled, and that the sum claimed in the former suit be ordered returned to complainant. From an interlocutory order overruling a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, which was granted, defendant Byron B. Burns appeals.\nE. J. Miller, for appellant.\nFrank M. Harbaugh, Edward C. Craig, Donald B. Craig and James W. Craig, Jr., for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0125-01",
  "first_page_order": 167,
  "last_page_order": 168
}