{
  "id": 5185091,
  "name": "Ole Carlson and Grels J. Norlander v. Daniel Anderson et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carlson v. Anderson",
  "decision_date": "1896-11-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "663",
  "last_page": "665",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 Ill. App. 663"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 143",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5177396
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/64/0143-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 Ill. 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5512162
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/162/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 Ill. 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3124715
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/161/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 617",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5080591
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "622"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/58/0617-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 222,
    "char_count": 2713,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15608960213510517
    },
    "sha256": "0fa1aca0e6a8f822bbca75bb5a8d113a7d13ee55994ed8792a70b96024fd9fa2",
    "simhash": "1:714515b4edbba29c",
    "word_count": 453
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:14.451346+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ole Carlson and Grels J. Norlander v. Daniel Anderson et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was a petition for a mechanic\u2019s lien by the original contractors, the appellants.\nUpon demurrer, the petition was dismissed for want of equity, and it is from such decree of dismissal .that this appeal is prosecuted.\nThe appellee has not favored us with any brief, but we will surmise that the learned chancellor of the Circuit Court followed decisions of this court in earlier cases, by holding that the statement of account filed with the clerk of the Circuit Court was insufficient, and not a compliance with section 4 of the mechanic\u2019s lien act, in force at the time the\" lien \"accrued.\nWe see no other ground upon which the chancellor could have acted.\nWe had held, in supposed following of prior decisions by the Supreme Court, that a statement of account, in as general terms as the one here in question, was insufficient in not setting forth with more particularity the times when, the labor was performed.and the materials furnished. Moore v. Parish, 58 Ill. App. 617; Fried v. Blanchard, Id. 622.\nBut the Supreme Court, by subsequent decisions, in Springer v. Kroeschell, 161 Ill. 358, and Blanchard v. Fried, 162 Ill. 462, have decided that our construction of their former decisions was incorrect, and we have since then followed their ruling. See additional opinion in Nat. Home Building and Loan Association v. McAllister, 64 Ill. App. 143, and Levinson v. Malloy, Id. 425.\nThese last decisions, both of the Supreme Court and of this court, were published after the demurrer in this case was sustained, and therefore were not before the chancellor ' when he decided what is complained of by this appeal.\nFollowing the last decisions, we must reverse the decree and remand the cause.\nBecause the act under which this cause arose has been repealed, and an entirely different one enacted, we will not incumber the record by inserting into this opinion the details of the statement of account that was made, it being no longer of value as a precedent.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Chytraus & Deneen and George E. Swartz, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Ho appearance for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ole Carlson and Grels J. Norlander v. Daniel Anderson et al.\n1. Mechanic\u2019s Lien.\u2014A Sufficient Statement\u2014Decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court that a statement in a mechanic\u2019s lien case, alleging that the materials and work were furnished between certain dates, is a sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement in regard to time, state the law correctly.\nMechanic\u2019s Lien.\u2014Appeal from 1he Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Oliver H. Horton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 19, 1896.\nChytraus & Deneen and George E. Swartz, attorneys for appellants.\nHo appearance for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0663-01",
  "first_page_order": 659,
  "last_page_order": 661
}