{
  "id": 3020955,
  "name": "Harry S. Mecartney, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mecartney v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1918-06-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,935",
  "first_page": "403",
  "last_page": "404",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 403"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "259 Ill. 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4727913
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/259/0322-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 Ill. 276",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2405919
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/273/0276-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2619,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08707322318791559
    },
    "sha256": "3eb318d28f4e8909ebf05ca0b513af7829c4e0ad2bb3af8cc5c8aec1ccedcbd9",
    "simhash": "1:85730400572d83b8",
    "word_count": 446
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harry S. Mecartney, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Limitation of actions, \u00a7 121 \u2014 when request for leave to file plea is too late. Refusal to permit the filing of a plea setting up the statute of limitations is not error where leave to file it is first sought after trial and review and remandment by the Suprem\u00e9 Court.\n3. Limitation of actions, \u00a7 106* \u2014 when refusal to allow filing of plea is not error. Refusal to permit the filing of a plea setting up the statute of limitations is not error where, even if the plea should be sustained, it would not end the litigation, but would leave open to plaintiff the remedy of assumpsit or of mandamus.\n4. Appeat. and ebbob, \u00a7 1725* \u2014 what matters deemed adjudicated on former appeal. The rule is that not only those matters which are presented for determination, but also those which could have been presented, shall be deemed to have been adjudicated by the decision of the Supreme Court on a former appeal.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel A. Ettelson, for plaintiff in error; Harry F. Atwood, Albert L. Green, Howard F. Bishop and Otto W. Ulrich, of counsel.",
      "Enoch J. Price, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harry S. Mecartney, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 23,935.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1733 \u2014 when claim for interest on awards against city in condemnation proceedings is res judicata. In an action to recover interest on awards against a city in condemnation proceedings for local improvements, plaintiff\u2019s claim to interest held to have been established by the decision of the Supreme Court in an action between the parties to determine his right to such awards (Mecartney v. City of Chicago, 273 Ill. 276), and to be res judicata under that decision.\nError to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Oscar M. Tobrison, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1918. Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 10, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Harry S. Mecartney, plaintiff, against the City of Chicago, defendant. The facts and issues involved are fully stated in City of Chicago v. Thomasson, 259 Ill. 322, and Mecartney v. City of Chicago, 273 Ill. 276. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for $20,442.41 interest on awards heretofore recovered against defendant (273 Ill. 276), the latter prosecutes this writ of error.\nSamuel A. Ettelson, for plaintiff in error; Harry F. Atwood, Albert L. Green, Howard F. Bishop and Otto W. Ulrich, of counsel.\nEnoch J. Price, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0403-01",
  "first_page_order": 457,
  "last_page_order": 458
}
