{
  "id": 5156382,
  "name": "Nicholas Kransz v. Henry Kagebein",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kransz v. Kagebein",
  "decision_date": "1895-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "430",
  "last_page": "431",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 430"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "131 Ill. 66",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5417706
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/131/0066-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill. App. 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5777565
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/11/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5102061
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/54/0502-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2350,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.468,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15583881531317076
    },
    "sha256": "3cd25fd114418032a0b199cfa5834a0af802fda7db1dbc0cbdf1a12617d6d548",
    "simhash": "1:49b6ad6d0af00718",
    "word_count": 401
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:36.351146+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Nicholas Kransz v. Henry Kagebein."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion op the Court.\nKransz filed his bill for'an injunction and receiver, with power to prepare crops, for market and sell them, against Kagebein, who was tenant of Kransz\u2014the premises being a market garden.\nUpon the bill an interlocutory injunction was granted and afterward dissolved, but the bill is still pending below on demurrer. All the argument here on behalf of Kransz, upon the merits of the whole case, is therefore premature, as the case is not here.\nUpon suggestion of damages sustained by Kagebein by the injunction, the court found \u201c that defendant (Kagebein) has sustained damages by reason of the issuance and service of said injunction, which the court here assesses at $116,\u201d and entered judgment thereon. That judgment only is brought before us by this writ of error.\nIt is conceded that to sustain a judgment or decree for damages sustained for an injunction the record must show facts justifying it. Such showing may be by a recital of the facts in the judgment or decree.\nThe recital must be of facts, not mere conclusions. Adair v. Adair, 54 Ill. App. 502.\nIt is contended that the above quotation is a sufficient recital of facts. We regard it as a recital of a conclusion. McGeoch v. Hooker, 11 Ill. App. 649.\nEven that conclusion is simply \u201c that the defendant has sustained damages,\u201d the amount of which is not recited as having been sustained, but only as being assessed. The recital is no better than the finding of \u201c equitable and just \u201d in the case cited, or the \u201c entitled to relief \u201d in Baird v. Powers, 131 Ill. 66.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Coleman, Williams & Linden, attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "Story, Westoveb & Stoby and W. C. Hoyeb, attorneys for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nicholas Kransz v. Henry Kagebein.\n1. Injunctions \u2014 Damages on Dissolution\u2014What the Deoree Must Show.\u2014To sustain a judgment or decree for damages on the dissolution of an injunction, the record must show facts justifying it; such showing may be by a recital of the facts in the judgment or decree, but the recital must be of facts and not mere conclusions.\nBill for an Injunction.\u2014Error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Murray F, Tuley, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 31, 1895.\nColeman, Williams & Linden, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nStory, Westoveb & Stoby and W. C. Hoyeb, attorneys for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0430-01",
  "first_page_order": 428,
  "last_page_order": 429
}