{
  "id": 5113688,
  "name": "Cors v. Tompkins",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cors v. Tompkins",
  "decision_date": "1894-02-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "315",
  "last_page": "317",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 315"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill. App. 38",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4905245
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/19/0038-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Ill. App. 34",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        865002
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/18/0034-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill. App. 520",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4884358
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/15/0520-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Ill. App. 325",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2404000
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/1/0325-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Ill. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2622996
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/66/0126-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5241810
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/57/0340-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 199,
    "char_count": 3106,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.303513979306392e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38790968122079705
    },
    "sha256": "d5a0892d25d2041ffdf30d158d9415d269e2fb11e6b265458c65a571adad956e",
    "simhash": "1:40f705c38676367c",
    "word_count": 535
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:15.137575+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cors v. Tompkins."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThis is an appeal from an order of court awarding damages upon the dissolution of an injunction. The damages claimed were for expense incurred in the employment of attorneys. Among the services rendered by appellee\u2019s attorneys were certain appearances and arguments in this court, upon an appeal from the order of dissolution.\nWe do not think that an allowance can be made for service here rendered after the injunction has been terminated by an order of the court below. Kor do we think that the evidence presented in this case as to the liability of or payment by the appellee for the amount awarded by the court was sufficient. It is not merely what the services of the solicitor were reasonably worth that is to be found, but for what sum has the party been reasonably and fairly made liable, or what has he reasonably and fairly paid; the thing to be determined is the damage he has suffered because of the injunction; the necessary and actual cost of removing the same is damage.\nIf there was an agreement with an attorney to do all that he could, or to prepare and argue a motion to dissolve for the sum of $100, that being the extent of the party\u2019s damage, he could not recover $200, although the attorney\u2019s services might have been worth that sum. It is necessary that courts should be particular about matters of this kind. Jevne & Almini v. Osgood et al., 57 Ill. 340; Elder et al. v. Sabin et al., 66 Ill. 126; Harms, Impl\u2019ed, etc., v. Fitzgerald, 1 Ill. App. 325; Gerard v. Gateau, 15 Ill. App. 520-530; McGouwn v. Law, 18 Ill. App. 34-38; Stinnett v. Wilson, 19 Ill. App. 38-41.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kelsey & Lazarus, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Wm. K. Burleigh, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cors v. Tompkins.\n1. Injunction\u2014Damages on Dissolution.\u2014The question to be determined, is the damage suffered because of the injunction. The necessary and actual cost of removing the same is the real damage. An allowance for attorney\u2019s fees for services in the Appellate Court after the injunction has been terminated by an order of the court below is improper.\n2. Injunction\u2014Dissolution\u2014Damages\u2014Services of Solicitor.\u2014It is not merely what the services of the solicitor were reasonably worth that is to be found, but for what sum the party has been reasonably and fairly made liable, or what he has reasonably and fairly paid.\n3. Injunction\u2014Dissolution\u2014Damages\u2014Solicitor's Fees\u2014Agreement. \u2014Where there was an agreement, with an attorney to prepare and argue a motion to dissolve an injunction for the sum of \u00a7100, that being the extent of the damage, the defendant can not recover \u00a7200, although the attorney\u2019s services might have been worth that sum.\nMemorandum.\u2014In chancery. Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Cook County awarding damages upon the dissolution of the injunction; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1893.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed February 13, 1894.\nThe statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nKelsey & Lazarus, attorneys for appellant.\nWm. K. Burleigh, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0315-01",
  "first_page_order": 311,
  "last_page_order": 313
}