{
  "id": 2949564,
  "name": "Herman Hollatz et al., Appellants, v. Frederick H. Gerberding et al., Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hollatz v. Gerberding",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,702",
  "first_page": "419",
  "last_page": "420",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 419"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2365,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "sha256": "eac96a87acb3f1bb72dddfa2c2ead8260b8851185658334eafd8de4b4dbb3173",
    "simhash": "1:e178c21525af2ab9",
    "word_count": 377
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Herman Hollatz et al., Appellants, v. Frederick H. Gerberding et al., Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Building restrictions and regulations, \u00a7 1 \u2014when building not used for business purposes. A flat building should not be considered as used for business within a building ordinance, because a physician, occupying one of the apartments, received and treated patients therein, or had his name in the window.\n2. Building restrictions and regulations, \u00a7 1*\u2014when building fronts on street. A building located upon a corner of a block with an entrance upon one street only should properly be considered as fronting upon both streets, within a building ordinance.\n3. Building restrictions and regulations, \u00a7 1*\u2014how ordinance construed as to consent of majority of property owners and as to residential character of buildings. Where an ordinance prohibited garages in blocks, wherein two-thirds of the buildings on both sides of the street were used exclusively for residence purposes or within one hundred feet of any such street, without the consent of a majority of the property owners on both sides of such street according to the frontage, and provided that a building fronting upon another street and located upon a corner lot should not be considered in determining such two-thirds of the residence buildings, held that buildings on corner lots should not be considered in determining the residential character of buildings but should be in obtaining the consents of owners.\n.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert C. Bennett and Wentworth, Cavender & Kaiser, for appellants; Daniel S. Wentworth, Harvey L. Cavender and C. A. Coolidge, of counsel.",
      "Miller, Gorham & Wales, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Herman Hollatz et al., Appellants, v. Frederick H. Gerberding et al., Appellees.\nGen. No. 22,702.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. M. L. McKinley, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 26, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nSuit by Herman Hollatz and others, complainants, against Frederick H. Gerberding and others, defendants, to enjoin the building of a certain garage contrary to a certain city ordinance as to location of garages. From a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, complainants appeal.\nRobert C. Bennett and Wentworth, Cavender & Kaiser, for appellants; Daniel S. Wentworth, Harvey L. Cavender and C. A. Coolidge, of counsel.\nMiller, Gorham & Wales, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0419-01",
  "first_page_order": 445,
  "last_page_order": 446
}