{
  "id": 5111613,
  "name": "Lindblom v. Williams",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lindblom v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1894-01-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "483",
  "last_page": "485",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 483"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 591",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        859849
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/37/0591-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3379,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.378575932419226
    },
    "sha256": "c5ffffb3c8c17d7fa16ee30b1a62876693e8af18e5ca43d56688c20bc736bb84",
    "simhash": "1:46de95f555530498",
    "word_count": 574
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:15.137575+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lindblom v. Williams."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis is an appeal from an award of damages \u2022 on the dissolution of an injunction.\nThe only proposition of the appellant is, \u201c There was nothing on which to permit suggestion of, or to award damages.\u201d\nA chancery case was pending in the Superior Court, entitled as above. In that suit on the 14th day of FTovember, 1892, the following order was made :\n\u201cIt is hereby ordered that the defendant, William S. Williams, his agent, solicitors and attorneys, and all persons acting in his behalf, do absolutely desist and refrain from prosecuting or taking any steps toward the prosecution of the suit at law now pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, wherein said Williams is plaintiff and \u00a1Robert Lindblom and Nathan G. Miller are defendants, being general number 101,523, until the further order of this court.\u201d\nDecember 28, 1892, the following order was made:\n\u201c This cause also coming on to be heard, and on the motion of defendant Williams to dissolve the injunction herein, after arguments of counsel, said motion is denied, and it is ordered that the complainant file an injunction bond in this cause in the penal sum of $10,000, with surety, to be approved by. the clerk of this court within one week.\u201d\nJanuary 6,1893, the following order was made :\n\u201c It appearing to the court that the complainant has failed to file an injunction bend as required by the order of tin's court, entered herein on December 28, 1892, therefore on motion of the defendant, Williams, it is ordered that the injunction granted herein be, and the same is, hereby dissolved, with leave to said defendant to file his suggestion of damages herein.\nNow the argument is, that as no writ of injunction ever issued, no damages could be awarded.\nBut the order of November 14th was an injunction from the granting of which an appeal would lie, and disobedience of which would be punished.\nIt is within \u201c all cases where an injunction is dissolved.\u201d Sec. 12, Ch\u201e 69, Injunctions. When dissolved it was a case for damages.\nVery delicately the appellant criticises the action of the court in not permitting him to cross-examine as to value, a witness, who had only stated the services he had rendered, and the amount he had been paid, the testimony as to value coming from other witnesses. The court was right. McKone v. Williams, 37 Ill. App. 591. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edmund Furthmann, attorney for appellant; Wm. M. Johnson, of counsel.",
      "Albert 0. Barnes, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lindblom v. Williams.\n1. Injunction\u2014What is, etc.\u2014Assessment of Damages.\u2014In a pending suit it was ordered that the defendant, Ms agents, solicitors and attorneys, and all persons acting in Ms behalf, absolutely desist and refrain from prosecuting, or taking any steps toward the prosecution of a certain suit at law, etc. It was held, that the order was an injunction, from the granting of which an appeal lies, and disobedience of which might be punished, and that it was within Sec. 12, Oh. 69, entitled \u201cInjunctions,\u201d providing that in all cases where an injunction is dissolved, damages may be assessed.\nMemorandum.\u2014Award of damages on dissolution of an injunction. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County. Heard in tliis court at the October term, 1893, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed January 11, 1894.\nThe statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nEdmund Furthmann, attorney for appellant; Wm. M. Johnson, of counsel.\nAlbert 0. Barnes, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0483-01",
  "first_page_order": 479,
  "last_page_order": 481
}