{
  "id": 5195083,
  "name": "Norman Cottrell et al. v. A. J. Cates",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cottrell v. Cates",
  "decision_date": "1896-11-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "401",
  "last_page": "402",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 401"
    }
  ],
  "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. 653",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        861666
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/31/0653-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 Ill. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 2040,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15622532433358083
    },
    "sha256": "d15e687cc7078f00e743a4c6e2430c0d7a01b2fefbfa112f5a20c7db6118ed76",
    "simhash": "1:94677b692ba4b65a",
    "word_count": 338
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Norman Cottrell et al. v. A. J. Cates."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThe question involved in the case is whether appellants have a perpetual easement in the lands of appellee.\nA perpetual easement is a freehold interest in land. Tinker v. Forbes, 138 Ill. 234; Goudy v. Lake View, 31 Ill. App. 653.\nJurisdiction to entertain the appeal is in the Supreme Court, not the Appellate Court. The appeal must be, and is, dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Blinn & Harris and Wallace & Lacey, attorneys for appellants; W. M. Cottrell, of counsel.",
      "H. R. Northrup and Beach & Hodnett, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Norman Cottrell et al. v. A. J. Cates.\n1. Freehold\u2014Perpetual Easements.\u2014A perpetual easement is a freehold in land, and this court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal concerning such an easement.\nBill for Relief.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Logan County; the Hon. Lyman Lacey, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1896.\nAppeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed November 21,1896.\nStatement of the Oase.\nThis was a. bill in chancery, exhibited by the appellants.\nThe bill averred the appellee had, by contract in writing and under seal, granted appellants the right and privilege of entering upon a certain tract of land, owned by him, and clearing out, deepening, enlarging, or improving, in such manner and way as they should deem best, a natural water way, which crossed said tract of land, and forever thereafter keeping and maintaining said water way in good and proper repair, etc., and that appellee had subsequently forbidden appellants from entering said premises or exercising such privilege, but had ordered them to leave the premises, and prohibited them from doing the work aforesaid in and about such water way.\nThe prayer of the bill was, the court, upon final hearing, would decree that appellants should have the perpetual right to go on the premises and work and clear out and keep in repair the water way, channel, etc.\nThe court sustained a demurrer to and dismissed the bill, and the complainants appealed.\nBlinn & Harris and Wallace & Lacey, attorneys for appellants; W. M. Cottrell, of counsel.\nH. R. Northrup and Beach & Hodnett, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0401-01",
  "first_page_order": 399,
  "last_page_order": 400
}
