{
  "id": 4967989,
  "name": "F. F. Randolph et al. v. Samuel S. Chisholm",
  "name_abbreviation": "Randolph v. Chisholm",
  "decision_date": "1888-09-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "172",
  "last_page": "173",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ill. App. 172"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "21 Ill. App. 312",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2418692
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/21/0312-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 137,
    "char_count": 1472,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.511,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1546088208231445
    },
    "sha256": "00d950fe54015c270a3e2d5184ea6fa99d53659773aef6e8c7a06770816e70a5",
    "simhash": "1:b5d400837c7c4995",
    "word_count": 268
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:26:47.112254+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "F. F. Randolph et al. v. Samuel S. Chisholm."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conger, J.\nThis case was formerly before this court and is reported in 21 Ill. App. 312, where a statement of the facts can he found.\nAfter the cause was remanded a trial was had and a decree rendered in accordance with the prayer of the petition.\nThe principal objection to the decree is, as claimed by appellants, that no title is shown in Randolph to the lot in question at the time of making the contract for the repairs to the mill. The evidence shows at least that he was in possession, claiming title, and hence such interest as he may have had was subject to the lien.\nThe second assignment of error is that \u201cthe court erred in rendering a decree against F. F. Randolph by default, when he had a demurrer undisposed of.\u201d As Randolph is no party to the appeal it is not necessary to notice this point; the error, if any it be, can not be urged by one not-affected by it.\nThe decree of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conger, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Craig & Craig, for appellants.",
      "Messrs. Wiley & Heal, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "F. F. Randolph et al. v. Samuel S. Chisholm.\nMechanic's Lien\u2014Title\u2014Error without Prejudice.\n1. The interest of one who is in possession, claiming title, is subject to a lien for repairs made under a contract with him.\n2. An error which only aSects one who is not a party to the appeal, is not sufficient ground for reversal.\n[Opinion filed September 21, 1888.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Coles County; the lion. C. B. Smith, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Craig & Craig, for appellants.\nMessrs. Wiley & Heal, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0172-01",
  "first_page_order": 168,
  "last_page_order": 169
}