{
  "id": 2945006,
  "name": "The Midland Press, Appellant, v. F. E. Compton & Company et al., Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Midland Press v. F. E. Compton & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,674",
  "first_page": "216",
  "last_page": "217",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 216"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2737,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351186e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47412667688347854
    },
    "sha256": "f8f6420c159cf26dd808335f6521b7cb2e98c3801017c1b4a9cb4e73922ddf73",
    "simhash": "1:1bfa4a713c9b1b9a",
    "word_count": 447
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Midland Press, Appellant, v. F. E. Compton & Company et al., Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1170 \u2014when injunctive relief not granted. Where a contract for personal services expired by afflux of time prior to opinion filed by the Appellate Court on appeal in a suit to enjoin certain defendants from inducing the parties whose services were so contracted for from breaking such contract, held that it would be a work of supererogation for the Appellate Court to grant such injunction.\n2. Injunction, \u00a7 140*\u2014when injunctive relief will not he granted. A court of equity will not enjoin the publication of either a slander or a libel, nor grant relief by injunctional proceeding for torts committed in the past.\n3. Contracts, \u00a7 4*\u2014what constitutes an oral contract. A contract partly in writing and partly oral is by legal interpretation an oral contract.\n4. Contracts, \u00a7 4*\u2014when contract deemed to he in writing. A contract is not in writing unless the parties thereto as well as its terms and provisions can be ascertained from the contract itself.\n5. Contracts, \u00a7 148*\u2014when contract for services is void as against public policy and in restraint of trade. A contract for the personal services in the sale of certain goods, held defective for want of mutuality of remedy and of obligation, and its restrictive covenant as to territory without limitation void as against public policy and in restraint of trade.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alden, Latham & Young, for appellant; T. A. Sheehan, of counsel.",
      "Gregory & McNab and Wilkerson, Cassels & Potter, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Midland Press, Appellant, v. F. E. Compton & Company et al., Appellees.\nGen. No. 22,674.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 19, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill for an injunction by the Midland Press, a corporation, complainant, against F. E. Compton & Company, a corporation, Frank E. Compton, E. C. McBride and P. A. Miller, defendants. From a decree dismissing the bill and the amended bill, on demurrer, for want of equity, complainant appeals.\nThe original bill based complainant\u2019s right to injunctional relief upon a certain written contract between the complainant and certain codefendants. After general and special demurrers to such bill were sustained, complainant by leave amended the bill, averring the contract between the parties in dispute rested \u201cpartly in writing and partly orally.\u201d The contract called for the personal services of the codefendants and expired by afflux of time January 1,1917.\nAlden, Latham & Young, for appellant; T. A. Sheehan, of counsel.\nGregory & McNab and Wilkerson, Cassels & Potter, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to,XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0216-01",
  "first_page_order": 242,
  "last_page_order": 243
}