{
  "id": 5150135,
  "name": "M. C. Jennings v. Oliver H. Horton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jennings v. Horton",
  "decision_date": "1895-06-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "519",
  "last_page": "520",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 Ill. App. 519"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "31 Ill. App. 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        861713
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/31/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 Ill. 560",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2930823
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/124/0560-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 100,
    "char_count": 1011,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15576159073366824
    },
    "sha256": "e63e3e1ab36e724c21528db86f14644dc7a8d1589448d19be8c79011880b2575",
    "simhash": "1:15ecc3f9d5ebd9e5",
    "word_count": 181
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:36.719815+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. C. Jennings v. Oliver H. Horton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis is a petition for a mandamus, not in aid of any case here pending, but, it may be assumed, in anticipation of some case that may come here, and the brief in support of the petition says: \u201cWe unhesitatingly declare that the doctrine announced in * * * Hawes v. People, 124 Ill. 560, is not good law and should not be a guide to this court, in such cases.\u201d\nAs to the first clause or branch of that proposition we are not called upon to express any opinion, as we hold the opposite of the second clause or branch. Fitzpatrick v. C. & W. I. R. R., 31 Ill. App. 649.\nThe petition is therefore dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. C. Jennings, attorney for petitioner.",
      "Otis & Graves, attorneys for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. C. Jennings v. Oliver H. Horton.\n1. Mandamus\u2014Jurisdiction of Appellate Court.\u2014A petition for a mandamus not in aid of any suit pending in this court, must be dismissed.\nMandamus.\u2014Original suit. Heard at the March term, 1895,\nand dismissed.\nOpinion filed June 27, 1895.\nM. C. Jennings, attorney for petitioner.\nOtis & Graves, attorneys for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0519-01",
  "first_page_order": 517,
  "last_page_order": 518
}