{
  "id": 5157454,
  "name": "Village of Vermont v. Robert M. Miller et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Village of Vermont v. Miller",
  "decision_date": "1895-06-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "166",
  "last_page": "167",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 166"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "146 Ill. 643",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3066303
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/146/0643-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 Ill. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5405175
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/126/0264-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 121,
    "char_count": 1279,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.476,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1558505920615449
    },
    "sha256": "9367d4a4cc8759192b5f4611881fbb196da1794dce53beaf74cc5b9590d1bd22",
    "simhash": "1:8adc059e98672390",
    "word_count": 213
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:36.351146+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Village of Vermont v. Robert M. Miller et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis was a bill in chancery to enjoin the appellant village from opening an alleged street in the village, upon the ground that such street had not been' legally platted or dedicatect to the village, and upon the further ground that the complainant in the bill (the appellees)' had had open, adverse and continuous possession of the strip of ground claimed as a street for more than twenty years. The village claimed a perpetual easement and the appellees claimed title by virtue of their adverse possession.\nA freehold was therefore involved. Chaplin v. Com. of Highways, 126 Ill. 264; Town of Brushy Mound v. McClintock, 146 Ill. 643.\nWe are without jurisdiction, to entertain the appeal.\nAppeal dismissed. Leave given the parties to withdraw record, abstracts and briefs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kinsey Thomas, attorney for appellant.",
      "H. W. Masters, attorney for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Village of Vermont v. Robert M. Miller et al.\n1. Freehold\u2014When Involved.\u2014A freehold is involved in a proceeding to enjoin a village from opening a street, on the ground that it bad not been legally platted or dedicated.\nBill for Injunction.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Fulton County; the Hon. Jefferson Orr, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1895.\nDismissed.\nOpinion filed June 13, 1895.\nKinsey Thomas, attorney for appellant.\nH. W. Masters, attorney for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0166-01",
  "first_page_order": 164,
  "last_page_order": 165
}