{
  "id": 856696,
  "name": "Arnold Tripp et al. v. Mary E. O'Brien et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tripp v. O'Brien",
  "decision_date": "1895-01-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "407",
  "last_page": "408",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "57 Ill. App. 407"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "128 Ill. 568",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5412240
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/128/0568-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 270,
    "char_count": 3165,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.830296483474066e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4581392583119711
    },
    "sha256": "e273f690b615e139e40916432d5e60d9350a40c3bbc8f0ce47a5e31fd9260f4b",
    "simhash": "1:1957e5907b258839",
    "word_count": 541
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:41.767696+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Arnold Tripp et al. v. Mary E. O\u2019Brien et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mb. Justice G-aby\ndelivbbed the opinion of the Couet.\nThe appellant bought a lot on a short street, subject to a building line agreement made by the previous owners of all the. property on both sides of the street, and proceeded to build in violation of the agreement. His neighbors procured an injunction, from the order granting which, this appeal was taken. His defense is, who begun it ?\nThe majority of this court are of opinion that front steps over the building line, and ornamental projections pertaining to. the houses of his neighbors, do not justify or'estop them to question his act in erecting the front wall of his house several feet over the line.\nThe order is therefore affirmed. But if it were reversed he could not prudently proceed with his building, for if on a final decree by the court of last resort it should be held that he was wrong, he might be compelled to take down that part of his house. Bispham\u2019s Eq., Sec. 404.\nAnd a wager upon the decision of a court of last resort is staked upon an uncertain event. Jones v. Randall, 1 Cowper, 37.\nOrder affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mb. Justice G-aby"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. M. Shaffner, attorney for appellants.",
      "Appellees\u2019 Brief, Chytraus & Deneen, Attorneys."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Arnold Tripp et al. v. Mary E. O\u2019Brien et al.\n1. Injunctions\u2014Building Lines.\u2014An injunction will lie to restrain an owner of a lot, bought by him subject to a building line agreement made by former owners, from building thereon in violation of the agreement.\n2. Building Lines\u2014Violation of\u2014Estoppel.\u2014The fact that a person\u2019s neighbors have erected front steps and other ornamental projections of houses over the building line, does not justify such person or estop them to question his act in erecting the front wall of his house several feet over the line.\n3. Wagers\u2014Ora Decisions of Courts.\u2014A wager upon the decision of a court of last resort is staked upon an uncertain event.\nMemorandum.\u2014Appeal from an order granting an injunction entered by the Circuit Comb of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed January 28, 1895.\nB. M. Shaffner, attorney for appellants.\nAppellees\u2019 Brief, Chytraus & Deneen, Attorneys.\nWhere a reservation has been made by agreement between original owners, a purchaser with notice takes subject to the reservation. An equitable servitude arises. Pomeroy\u2019s Equity Jurisprudence (2d Ed.), Sec. 1295; Washburn on Easements (4th Ed.), 112 et seq.; Eckhart v. Irons, 128 Ill. 568; Cole v. Sims, 23 Law Jour., Chy., 258.\nPomeroy, in his work on Equity Jurisprudence, Sec. 1342, speaking of these restrictive covenants and agreements in deeds, and of their being specifically enforced by injunction not only between the immediate parties to the deeds, but also between remote grantees, says:\n\u201c The injunction in this class of cases is granted almost as a matter of course, upon a breach of the covenant.\u201d * * * \u201cThe fact that plaintiff has sustained any pecuniary damages, is wholly immaterial.\u201d And further quoting, as he says, one of the ablest of modern equity judges, \u201c It is not for the court, but the plaintiffs, to estimate the damages that arise from the injury inflicted upon them.\u201d\nTo the same effect: Lord Manners v. Johnson, 1 Law Reports, Chan. Div., 673."
  },
  "file_name": "0407-01",
  "first_page_order": 403,
  "last_page_order": 404
}