{
  "id": 5100585,
  "name": "Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. West Chicago St. R. R. Co.; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. West Chicago St. R. R. Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis R. R. v. West Chicago St. R. R.",
  "decision_date": "1894-03-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "273",
  "last_page": "273",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 273"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "75 Ill. 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2701180
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/75/0074-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 138,
    "char_count": 1537,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2951318082053356e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7867230869444513
    },
    "sha256": "43f1577b55692d408d0d9a004219fcd81aec0d7dba80fdde8189e6225b1e8b5c",
    "simhash": "1:94b4ead09e49fa60",
    "word_count": 261
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. West Chicago St. R. R. Co. and Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. West Chicago St. R. R. Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThese two cases are alike with one exception to be noted. Both are bills filed by the appellants to enjoin the appellee from extending the tracks of the street railway across the tracks of the appellants at street crossings, and the only question is whether the appellee should first proceed to condemn, under the eminent domain act.\nIn the first ease, the fee at the crossing is in the city; in the second, in the appellant, subject to the public easement as a street. We are of opinion that this difference of fact makes no difference in principle, and that the Circuit Court rightly dismissed both bills for want of equity.\nIt is enough for us to refer to sections 722-723, of Dillon\u2019s Municipal Corporations for the reasons. Condemnation proceedings do not lie for mere damage, if no property is taken. Stetson v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. R. Co., 75 Ill. 74. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Loesch Brothers, attorneys for appellants.",
      "E. Jamison and George Hunt, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. West Chicago St. R. R. Co. and Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. West Chicago St. R. R. Co.\n1. Eminent Domain\u2014Where Condemnation Pt'oceedings Do Not Lie. \u2014Condemnation proceedings do not lie for mere damage, if no property is taken.\nMemorandum.\u2014Bill for injunction. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed March 6, 1894.\nLoesch Brothers, attorneys for appellants.\nE. Jamison and George Hunt, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0273-01",
  "first_page_order": 271,
  "last_page_order": 271
}