{
  "id": 5405364,
  "name": "Bert Biederbeck, Appellant, v. Robert Tucker, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Biederbeck v. Tucker",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,354",
  "first_page": "145",
  "last_page": "146",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 145"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 3261,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.589,
    "sha256": "6a9b05b6bf535e984d62f4167b095b202d1a729a4575487f6cce2818f99e66cf",
    "simhash": "1:b4c5979dd20984fe",
    "word_count": 549
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Bert Biederbeck, Appellant, v. Robert Tucker, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. P. Westervelt, Clarence W. Heyl and Harry C. Heyl, for appellant.",
      "R. H. Radley, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bert Biederbeck, Appellant, v. Robert Tucker, Appellee.\nGen. No. 6,354.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Peoria county; the Hon. Chester F. Barnett, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 19, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Bert Biederbeck, plaintiff, against Robert Tucker, defendant, to recover one-half the expense of a fence built under the Fence Viewers\u2019 Act, see. 8 (J. & A. if 5708), and also the fees and reasonable expenses of the fence viewers. From a judgment based on a directed verdict in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.\nO. P. Westervelt, Clarence W. Heyl and Harry C. Heyl, for appellant.\nR. H. Radley, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Fences, \u00a7 12 \u2014when fence viewers have no authority to make appraisement of damages. In an action to recover damages for building the defendant\u2019s portion of a division line fence which was erected by the plaintiff pursuant to the decision of fence viewers appointed under the Fence Viewers\u2019 Act, sec. 8 (J. & A. If 5708), where it appeared that the notice limited the authority of the fence viewers to determining what proportion of the fence should be maintained by each owner, and damages were assessed without giving notice for the selection of fence viewers to make the appraisement of damages, held that the fence viewers originally selected could not legally make the appraisement of the damages, because they were not selected for that purpose under- the original notice, and it was therefore necessary to give another notice to the defendant so that he would have the opportunity, which the statute contemplated, of selecting one of the fence viewers to make such appraise- \u25a0 ment.\n2. Fences, \u00a7 12*\u2014when fence viewers have no authority to determine character of fence to he huilt hy parties. Where a notice is given under the Fence Viewers\u2019 Act, sec. 8 (J. & A. If 5708), for the purpose of determining the proportion of a division fence between lands which should be maintained by each owner, and the notice is limited to such purpose only, the fence viewers have no authority to determine the character of the fence to be built by the parties.\n3. Fences, \u00a7 6*\u2014when party erecting fence entitled to recover one-half of fees and expenses of fence viewers. In an action to recover damages for building the defendant\u2019s portion of a division line fence which was erected by the plaintiff pursuant to the decision of fence viewers appointed under the Fence Viewers\u2019 Act, sec. 8 (J. & A. H 5708), and also to recover the fees and reasonable expenses of the fence viewers, where it was determined that the plaintiff had no right to recover the cost of the fence because notice for the appointment of appraisers to appraise damages had not been given, held that the plaintiff was, however, entitled to recover one-half the amount paid by him for fees and reasonable expenses for the fence viewers which were incurred in determining the dispute as to the proportions of the fence-to be maintained by the respective parties.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0145-01",
  "first_page_order": 173,
  "last_page_order": 174
}