{
  "id": 2422729,
  "name": "Emma A. Doyle v. Sylvester E. Brown et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doyle v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1889-01-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "88",
  "last_page": "88",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 88"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "106 Ill. 147",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2782669
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/106/0147-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Ill. App. 34",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        865002
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/18/0034-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1429,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32246435989125233
    },
    "sha256": "b65eed50f1cb941a6c1e0ec4e8bb944da69e5d5f8e4a981a252f1d02385b4f00",
    "simhash": "1:dc3835b132cb21b1",
    "word_count": 245
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:02:08.632983+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Emma A. Doyle v. Sylvester E. Brown et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Gary, J.\nThe defendants in error seem to have abandoned this case (as no brief has been filed by them, although by stipulation they took time to do so), and with good reason, for the dissolution of an injunction on demurrer to the bill furnishes no ground for assessing damages for the services of the attorney, as such services have no special reference to the injunction, but are in general defense of the suit. McQuown v. Law, 18 Ill. App. 34, and cases there cited. There is no decree disposing of the bill which asks general relief besides the injunction.\nThe order sustains the demurrer only, and then stops, except the decree of the 850 damages was afterward entered. The decree is reversed, but there is nothing to remand. The case itself is, so far as this record shows, still pending.\nWhether the demurrer should have been sustained or not is not a question here until there is a final decree. Frederick v. Conn. R. S. Bk., 106 Ill. 147.\nDecree reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gary, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. James Fullenwider, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Ho appearance for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Emma A. Doyle v. Sylvester E. Brown et al.\nInjunctions\u2014Dissolution on Demurrer\u2014Damages\u2014Solicitor's Fees\u2014 Practice.\nThe dissolution of an injunction on demurrer to the hill furnishes no ground for the assessment of damages for services of the solicitor.\n[Opinion filed January 16, 1889.]\nIn ebbob to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Egbert Jamieson, Judge, presiding.\nMr. James Fullenwider, for plaintiff in error.\nHo appearance for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0088-01",
  "first_page_order": 84,
  "last_page_order": 84
}