{
  "id": 2947729,
  "name": "Washingtonian Home of Chicago, Appellee, v. City of Chicago, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Washingtonian Home v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-20",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,025",
  "first_page": "406",
  "last_page": "407",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 406"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2125,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.521,
    "sha256": "976ea2ccd52145fa041cbd79c5b8ebba262e449051d7e9268ce36fc7f2c79cc9",
    "simhash": "1:0131c0a050bf20d4",
    "word_count": 320
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Washingtonian Home of Chicago, Appellee, v. City of Chicago, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McDonald\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McDonald"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel A. Ettelson, for appellant; Morton S. Cresst, Daniel Webster and Wilbur F. Hartman, of counsel.",
      "A. W. Martin and Edward H. S. Martin, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Washingtonian Home of Chicago, Appellee, v. City of Chicago, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,025.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nInterlocutory appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed March 20, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nSuit by Washingtonian Home of Chicago, a corporation, complainant, against the City of Chicago, defendant, to enjoin the enforcement against complainant of a certain ordinance of the defendant requiring the installation in ndnfireproof buildings more than two stories in height of certain fire apparatus. From an interlocutory order of injunction against the defendant, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Injunction, \u00a7 190 \u2014when bill insufficiently alleges financial inability of complainant to comply with ordinance as to fire apparatus in building. The allegations in complainant\u2019s bill held to be insufficient to show complainant\u2019s financial inability to comply with defendant\u2019s ordinance requiring certain fire apparatus in certain buildings of the class to which complainant\u2019s building belonged.\n2. Injunction, \u00a7 185*\u2014what allegations of irreparable damage are necessary. General allegations only of irreparable damage as a basis for an injunction are insufficient; the bill should recite facts and circumstances from which it clearly appears irreparable injury will follow unless the injunction is granted.\n3. Injunction, \u00a7 185*\u2014when averment in bill does not ipso facto imply irretrievable damage. The averment in a bill for an injunction that the defendant has threatened and continues to threaten to close complainant\u2019s building if a certain ordinance applicable to such building is not complied with by complainant, does not ipso facto imply irretrievable damage.\nSamuel A. Ettelson, for appellant; Morton S. Cresst, Daniel Webster and Wilbur F. Hartman, of counsel.\nA. W. Martin and Edward H. S. Martin, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0406-01",
  "first_page_order": 432,
  "last_page_order": 433
}