{
  "id": 5646918,
  "name": "Dulcemia Warren and Eugenia Wilson, Appellees, v. Raymond J. Yost et al. Raymond J. Yost, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Warren v. Yost",
  "decision_date": "1942-12-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 42,222",
  "first_page": "79",
  "last_page": "81",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "317 Ill. App. 79"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "296 Ill. App. 111",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3152453
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/296/0111-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 Ill. App. 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3355665
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/279/0462-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 230,
    "char_count": 3564,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.16384854869917126
    },
    "sha256": "e18a553de604911398810693f6d357fb548b3d70017852020a18bb0c04ea8ac3",
    "simhash": "1:a6cd5f2b3b0af442",
    "word_count": 598
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:31.211272+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dulcemia Warren and Eugenia Wilson, Appellees, v. Raymond J. Yost et al. Raymond J. Yost, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nNovember 14, 1941, plaintiffs filed their verified complaint in chancery praying that defendants be' restrained from taking any further steps in a forcible detainer action in the municipal court, and for an accounting. Three days afterward, on motion of counsel for plaintiffs, an order was entered denying their motion for a temporary restraining order. December 22, following, defendant Raymond J. Yost, filed his verified answer to the complaint. January 5, 1942, counsel for defendant served notice on counsel for plaintiffs that on January 7 he would appear before Judge Nelson and ask that an order be entered dismissing the complaint for want of equity \u201cin accordance with the answer of the defendant Raymond J. Yost,\u201d theretofore filed. January 7, an order was entered on motion of plaintiffs\u2019 attorney, defendant\u2019s motion was continued until January 9, and on January 9. an order was entered which recites that on motion of attorney for defendant, Raymond J. Yost, who had not been served but who had entered his appearance and filed his answer \u2018 \u2018 and the court having read the verified pleadings filed herein and having heard the evidence and the arguments of counsel . . . .\u201d Then follow a number of findings to the effect that there was no merit to plaintiffs\u2019 case and it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that the complaint be dismissed for want of equity at plaintiffs\u2019 costs. Three days afterward, January 12, upon notice of motion of counsel for plaintiffs, an order was entered which recites that upon motion of attorney for plaintiffs \u201cto vacate the order of January 9th, dismissing the above entitled cause for want of equity and fob leave to plaintiffs to take a non-suit\u201d it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that the order of January 9, dismissing the suit for want of equity be vacated and set aside and \u201cThat plaintiffs have leave to take non-suit and that the above entitled cause is- hereby dismissed at plaintiffs\u2019 cost and without prejudice.\u201d It is from this order that defendant, Raymond J. Yost, appeals.\nPlaintiffs have filed no brief in this court. Counsel for defendant Yost says that the order of January 12, which purported to vacate the order of January 9 and permit plaintiffs to take a non-suit, \u201cwas granted over objection .of defendant,\u201d but no such objection appears in the record but we think it not important here. The court was not warranted on January 12 in vacating its order or decree of January 9 which showed that the court heard the case on its merits and ordered the suit dismissed for want of equity without any showing as to why this should be done. Section 50, ch. 110, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1941 [Jones Ill. Stats. Ann. 104.050]. And the court was also without warrant in allowing plaintiffs \u2019 motion for a non-suit since there was no attempt to comply with the provisions of section 52 of the Civil Practice Act, \u00a7 52, ch. 110, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1941 [Jones Ill. Stats. Ann. 104.052]; Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. County of Cook, 279 Ill. App. 462; Gunderson v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago, 296 Ill. App. 111.\nThe order of January 12 appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nMatchett, P. J., and McSurely, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alfred F. Beck, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dulcemia Warren and Eugenia Wilson, Appellees, v. Raymond J. Yost et al. Raymond J. Yost, Appellant.\nGen. No. 42,222.\nOpinion filed December 21, 1942.\nAlfred F. Beck, of Chicago, for appellant.\nNo appearance for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0079-01",
  "first_page_order": 131,
  "last_page_order": 133
}