{
  "id": 2962240,
  "name": "Edward L. Thornton, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Helmick, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thornton v. Helmick",
  "decision_date": "1916-10-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,285",
  "first_page": "592",
  "last_page": "594",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 592"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 4139,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.682524327565526e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4527850851536132
    },
    "sha256": "375d427cfb0a50edf7171c197232163567a3ef8ebb868bce31fb450104030704",
    "simhash": "1:5fd7809c18ba0279",
    "word_count": 687
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward L. Thornton, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Helmick, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe writ of error in this case seeks a reversal of a judgment for one hundred dollars in favor of plaintiff and against defendant on the finding of the issues by the court under a submission in which trial by jury was waived.\nThe action arises under an agreement between the parties for an exchange of real estate and involves the construction of the words \u201csubject to taxes and special assessments levied and payable after the year A. D. 1911.\u201d The trades were closed, the deeds were passed and the contract was canceled as having been performed by all the parties to it.\nThe contract is dated August 24, 1912. The special assessments said to be involved are claimed to be payable in instalments after 1911. We think that the word \u201cpayable\u201d used in regard to special assessments means by construction that the purchaser should pay any amounts not due but payable as special assessments after the year 1911; so that notwithstanding the special assessments were a lien prior to 1911, the instalments involved were not payable until after 1911. It therefore follows that the payment of unpaid special assessments devolved, under the contract, upon the purchaser. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record establishing as a fact that any special assessments were ever levied, charged or assessed against any property embraced within the contract between the parties; neither is there any attempt to make any legal proof of any such special assessments. One of the witnesses assumed that certain special assessments rested upon the property, but such evidence is not sufficient to meet legal requirements\nThe finding and judgment of the Municipal Court are wrong, and as plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment for' any sum under his statement of claim and the evidence, the judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed and a judgment of nil capiat and for costs entered in this court.\nReversed with judgment of nil capiat and for costs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. W. Martin and Edward H. S. Martin, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Adams, Crews, Bobb &. Wescott, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward L. Thornton, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Helmick, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 22,285.\n1. Vendor and purchaser, \u00a7 67 \u2014what special assessments payable by grantee. Where parties agreed to exchange real estate \u201csubject to taxes and special assessments levied and payable after the year 1911,\u201d the word \u201cpayable,\u201d as applied to special assessments, is to be construed as meaning that the purchaser should pay any amounts not due but payable as special assessments after the year 1911, so that although the assessments in question were a lien prior to 1911, the instalments were not \u201cpayable,\u201d within the meaning of the contract, until after 1911, thus devolving their payment on' the purchaser.\n2. Vendor and purchaser, \u00a7 352*\u2014when evidence of levy of special assessments insufficient. In an action on an agreement to exchange real estate to recover the amount of certain special assessments, evidence held insufficient to prove that such assessments were ever levied.\n3. Vendor and purchaser, 323*\u2014when recovery for assessments paid erroneous. In an action to recover the amount of certain special assessments, where the evidence was insufficient to prove that such assessments were ever levied, a judgment for plaintiff held erroneous.\n4. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 31 \u2014when judgment of nil capiat entered in Appellate Court. Where in an action in the Municipal Court of Chicago the record shows that plaintiff was not entitled to judgment for any sum under his statement of claim and the evidence, the judgment will he reversed and judgment of nil capiat and for costs entered in the Appellate Court.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.\nReversed with judgment of nil capiat and for costs.\nOpinion filed October 30, 1916.\nA. W. Martin and Edward H. S. Martin, for plaintiff in error.\nAdams, Crews, Bobb &. Wescott, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0592-01",
  "first_page_order": 634,
  "last_page_order": 636
}