{
  "id": 5107387,
  "name": "Frank M. Palmer v. City of Clinton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Palmer v. City of Clinton",
  "decision_date": "1893-10-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "67",
  "last_page": "68",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 Ill. App. 67"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2431,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.513,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.749955359958061e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49488580222244616
    },
    "sha256": "bb28ad26fc1dc20424328d04d7c39576efffa6a6555852f1af58ad93553fd2c5",
    "simhash": "1:1e6f2cde5d7857fe",
    "word_count": 428
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:33.379321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank M. Palmer v. City of Clinton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Wall\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellant was fined for obstructing a street. The principal contention now made in his behalf is. that the locus in quo was not a street.\nIt is not doubtful that the original proprietor intended to dedicate the parcel or strip -to the public use as a street.\nHaving first platted an addition to the town (now city) in which the strip was included in lots 3 and 6 of block 1, he afterward executed a written instrument which was duly recorded, whereby he designated the strip, being fifty feet in width off the east side of said lots, as a public street. Afterward the municipal authorities caused a survey of the city and its additions to be made. This survey, in which this strip appears as a street, was reported to the council January . 30, 1868. By an act approved March 29, 1869, amending the city charter, the General Assembly declared that this survey, upon being spread on the county records, should be the only legal and correct survey of the-city of Clinton. It was filed for record April 16, 1869. Here, then, is the highest evidence of acceptance. There was also some proof of work done on the street by the city. The judgment is right and will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Wall"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wm. Monson, attorney for appellant.",
      "Michael Donahue, city attorney, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank M. Palmer v. City of Clinton.\n1. Highways\u2014Dedication and Acceptance.\u2014A person platted an addition to a town in which a strip of land was included in certain lots, and afterward executed a written instrument, which was duly recorded, whereby he designated a strip, being fifty feet in width off the east side of said first named strip, as a public street. Afterward the municipal authorities caused a survey of the city, it having been organized as such, and its additions to be made, in which this strip appeared as a street, and 'was reported to the council. Afterward by an act amending the city charter the General Assembly declared that this survey, upon being spread on the county records, should be the only legal and correct survey of the city. It was held that these acts amounted to an acceptance of the street by the public.\nMemorandum.\u2014Suit for the violation of an ordinance obstructing a street. Appeal from the Circuit Court of De Witt County; the Hon. Cyrus Epler, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term,, 1893,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed October 28, 1893.\nThe opinion states the case.\nWm. Monson, attorney for appellant.\nMichael Donahue, city attorney, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0067-01",
  "first_page_order": 63,
  "last_page_order": 64
}