{
  "id": 5171693,
  "name": "William Grace and Frank D. Hyde v. The Oakland Building Association et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grace v. Oakland Building Ass'n",
  "decision_date": "1896-03-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "339",
  "last_page": "341",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 Ill. App. 339"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 622",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5080777
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/58/0622-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 Ill. 590",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5338388
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/88/0590-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill. 473",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5207874
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/30/0473-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Gilm. 679",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "case_ids": [
        2558300
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/7/0679-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill. App. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5123362
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/50/0168-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2697,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.33368489823151853
    },
    "sha256": "2373d702e9607a3fa6d83fd262dc70f2b6fd7ed642301d798aedde654027253c",
    "simhash": "1:31c0c784e48a5900",
    "word_count": 477
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:49.987215+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Grace and Frank D. Hyde v. The Oakland Building Association et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe opinion of this court in Schroth v. Black, 50 Ill. App. 168, might have been more clearly expressed.\nThe effect of it, upon the point under consideration, is, that where a statement of a supposed fact is unnecessarily in an exhibit, and the bill contains an averment that the fact is otherwise, upon demurrer the averment in the bill is to be taken as true\u2014not that the meaning or construction, of an exhibit can be changed by any averment in the bill.\nThe plaintiff in error filed a cross-bill to enforce a mechanic\u2019s lien. The proceeding is under chancery rules by the law in force when the cross-bill was filed, May 25, 1895, as well as by the law which took effect July 1, 1895. Therefore, whatever was alleged by the cross-bill, and material, if not admitted by the answer, must be proved, or no relief can be given. DeWolf v. Long, 2 Gilm. 679, has been adhered to in a great many cases. Nelson v. Pinegar, 30 Ill. 473. Corporate capacity to sue, if not denied by the answer, is an exception. Enos v. Chesnut, 88 Ill. 590.\nThe master, to whom the case had been referred, reported against the appellants, because, as he truly stated, there are in the claim filed by the appellants, under Sec. 4, Ch. 82, of the law in force when this cross-bill was filed, no dates as to when materials were furnished or labor performed. The appellants therefore had no lien, and the decree dismissing the cross-bill is affirmed. Fried v. Blanchard, 58 Ill. App. 622. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "- F. W. Becker and Dale & Francis, attorneys for plaint-tiffs in error.",
      "Wolseley & Heath, attorneys for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Grace and Frank D. Hyde v. The Oakland Building Association et al.\n1. Equity Practice\u2014Averments of the Bill and Exhibits.\u2014Where a statement of a supposed fact is unnecessarily in an exhibit, and the bill contains an averment that the fact is otherwise, upon demurrer the averment of the bill is to be taken as true.\n3. Same\u2014Allegations not Admitted Must be Proved. \u2014 Corporate capacity to sue, if not denied by the answer, is an exception to the rule that whatever is alleged by the bill, and material if not admitted by the answer, must be proved.\n3. Mechanic\u2019s Liens\u2014Sufficiency of Statement.\u2014A statement of a claim for a lien under section 4 of chapter 83, R. S., entitled Liens (in force previous to July 3, 1895), which contains no dates as to where the materials were furnished or labor performed, is insufficient.\nBill to Enforce a Mechanic's Lien.\u2014Error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 31, 1896.\n- F. W. Becker and Dale & Francis, attorneys for plaint-tiffs in error.\nWolseley & Heath, attorneys for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0339-01",
  "first_page_order": 335,
  "last_page_order": 337
}