{
  "id": 5099051,
  "name": "West Chicago Street Railroad Company, West Chicago Street Railroad Tunnel Company, Charles T. Yerkes et al. v. Morrison, Adams & Allen Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "West Chicago Street Railroad v. Morrison, Adams & Allen Co.",
  "decision_date": "1894-07-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "556",
  "last_page": "557",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 556"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 281",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2421896
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/30/0281-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 Ill. 643",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3066303
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/146/0643-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill. 591",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5410770
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/127/0591-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 Ill. 646",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        831462
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/108/0646-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 132,
    "char_count": 1548,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.482209072270628e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8076322210291025
    },
    "sha256": "a1c7ecf4c952d8edd1294eaa681d840ef51bcb51e76fe9ab7882f8afc8c5d516",
    "simhash": "1:1ca0b4f7060c99be",
    "word_count": 243
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "West Chicago Street Railroad Company, West Chicago Street Railroad Tunnel Company, Charles T. Yerkes et al. v. Morrison, Adams & Allen Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, brought by the appellee against the appellants, for the forcible breaking into appellee\u2019s business house and expelling it therefrom.\nAmong other pleas filed to the declaration was one of lilerum tenementum, and to such plea the appellee replied specially, that the premises were not the close and freehold of the appellants.\n\u201c The plea of lilerum tenementum necessarily, where, as here, it is directly put in issue by the replication, involves a freehold.\u201d Piper v. Connelly, 108 Ill. 646; Sanford v. Kane, 127 Ill. 591; Town of Brushy Mound v. McClintock, 146 Ill. 643; Pratt v. Kendig, 30 Ill. App. 281.\nTherefore this court has no jurisdiction of this appeal, and it will be dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edmund Furthmann, attorney for appellants.",
      "Charles Shackleford, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "West Chicago Street Railroad Company, West Chicago Street Railroad Tunnel Company, Charles T. Yerkes et al. v. Morrison, Adams & Allen Company.\n1. Freehold\u2014Liberum Tenementum.\u2014In an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, the plea of liberum tenementum when replied to specially that the premises were not the close and freehold of the plaintiff, necessarily involves a freehold.\nMemorandum.\u2014Trespass quare clausum fregit. In the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding. Plea of liberum tenementum; replication; appeal.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand appeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1894.\nEdmund Furthmann, attorney for appellants.\nCharles Shackleford, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0556-01",
  "first_page_order": 554,
  "last_page_order": 555
}