{
  "id": 5069484,
  "name": "City of Chicago v. L. W. Beck",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Beck",
  "decision_date": "1892-02-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "47",
  "last_page": "48",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 47"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "31 Ill. App. 658",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        861699
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/31/0658-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1706,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.774,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7952529778757217e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7155791708319674
    },
    "sha256": "e37bd078b99276d6fc63d859c1b8fca667db9d0946cb1583099e30a4159ef7f9",
    "simhash": "1:5a2270e2ea6f3e31",
    "word_count": 281
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:00:30.730018+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Chicago v. L. W. Beck."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WATERMAN, P. 3.\nThe appeal in this case is taken from an order of the Circuit Court, overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction issued by that court.\nThis court held in the case of Taylor v. Kirby, 31 Ill. App. 658, that so much of the act entitled \"An act to provide for appeals from interlocutory orders granting injunctions or appointing receivers,\" approved June 14, 1887, as attempts to provide for, and confer jurisdiction upon this court, not only in the case of appeals from orders granting injunctions or appointing receivers, but also from those overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction, is unconstitm tional, because embracing a subject not expressed in the title of time act.\nThe provision of the constitution alluded to is Sec. 13, of Art. 4.\nTo the decision upon this subject, heretofore macic, we adhere.\nThe appeal in this case will therefore be dismissed.\n..4ppeccl this2n ~ssec1.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WATERMAN, P. 3."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Arthur H. Chetlain and Arnott Stubblefield, for appellant.",
      "Mr. B. D. Cor, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Chicago v. L. W. Beck.\nAppeal and Error\u2014Injunctions\u2014Motion to Dissolve\u2014Sea. 13, Art. 4, Constitution.\nSo much of the act entitled \u201cAn act to provide for appeals from interlocutory orders granting injunctions or appointing receivers,\u201d approved June 14, 1887, as attempts to provide for, and confer jurisdiction upon this court, not only in the case of appeals from orders granting injunctions or appointing receivers, but also from those overruling a motion to dissolve an injunction, is unconstitutional because embracing a subject not expressed in the title of the act.\n[Opinion filed February 9, 1892.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Loren C. Collins, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Arthur H. Chetlain and Arnott Stubblefield, for appellant.\nMr. B. D. Cor, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0047-01",
  "first_page_order": 43,
  "last_page_order": 44
}