{
  "id": 2921976,
  "name": "W. A. Davis, Appellee, v. E. J. Rose, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Davis v. Rose",
  "decision_date": "1917-12-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,473",
  "first_page": "329",
  "last_page": "330",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ill. App. 329"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 173,
    "char_count": 2073,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "sha256": "4960c9b04f8b8eeb05b9715cfae946110fb7d5f378601d46f0fbd82c940b54ed",
    "simhash": "1:675ad8adb42882fd",
    "word_count": 329
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:32.195438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. A. Davis, Appellee, v. E. J. Rose, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Injunction, \u00a7 162 \u2014when granting of order for without notice is improper. That an order of injunction was granted without notice is ground for reversal, unless it appeared from the bill and affidavit that the rights' of complainant would have been unduly prejudiced if the injunction had not been issued immediately or without notice.\n2. Injunction, \u00a7 162*\u2014when granted without notice. To justify the issuance of an injunction without notice, it is not sufficient to state conclusions of prejudice, but facts must be stated from which the court can draw the conclusion that an immediate injunction without notice is necessary to save complainant from harm.\n3. Injunction, \u00a7 67*\u2014when will not be granted because seeking specific performance of contract. An injunction which, in. effect, seeks the specific performance of a contract for the construction of a building, involving the preparation of plans and specifications by the court and the superintendence of their carrying out, \"will not be granted.\n4. Injunction, \u00a7 13*\u2014when denial proper because of adequate remedy at law. An injunction which seeks to have a court of chancery deliver to complainant possession of premises described in a lease from defendant will not be granted, complainant having an adequate remedy at law.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, for appellant.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. A. Davis, Appellee, v. E. J. Rose, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,473.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nInterlocutory appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed December 3, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by W. A. Davis, complainant, against E. J. Bose, . defendant, to enjoin defendant from selling, assigning, leasing or attempting to sell, assign or lease certain premises. From an injunctional order granted complainant, defendant appeals.\nMayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, for appellant.\nNo appearance for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0329-01",
  "first_page_order": 353,
  "last_page_order": 354
}