{
  "id": 5192937,
  "name": "Frank A. Dunning v. Charles S. Young",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dunning v. Young",
  "decision_date": "1897-01-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "668",
  "last_page": "671",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 668"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        869077
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/62/0340-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 Ill. 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2936924
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/125/0417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 Ill. 600",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2829578
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/99/0600-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2777345
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/85/0349-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill. App. 92",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5780059
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/24/0092-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Ill. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2622996
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/66/0126-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 4748,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7492960360752035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29847666794473343
    },
    "sha256": "f6aad93d318a7928869a36b7f7509a026dbbf28c88984ca7fb932b4c54bef833",
    "simhash": "1:a20081a06043302a",
    "word_count": 818
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank A. Dunning v. Charles S. Young."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe only damages that can be allowed on the dissolution of an injunction are such as result from an improper suing out of the same; and the allowance for solicitors\u2019 fees must be confined to service rendered on the motion to dissolve. Elder et al. v. Sabin et al., 66 Ill. 126; Lichtenstadt v. Fleisher, 24 Ill. App. 92; Weaver, Adm\u2019r, v. Fries, 85 Ill. 349; Blair v. Reading et al., 99 Ill. 600; Moriarty v. Galt, 125 Ill. 417.\nThe allowance of fees rests, to a considerable degree, in the discretion of the chancellor before whom the -litigation has proceeded, and the discrimination made by him, as it can best be, between the services rendered on the motion to dissolve and those which were for the trial of the case, is a matter which presents to a reviewing court a difficult question.\nSo, too, whether anything should be allowed on a motion to dissolve when no dissolution was had until after hearing, is a thing with which the chancellor before whom the proceedings were, has an opportunity for coming to a correct conclusion which an appellate tribunal does not possess. Lichtenstadt v. Fleisher, 24 Ill. App. 92.\nIn the present case the motion to dissolve was denied, and only after hearing upon the merits was the injunction dissolved.\nThe Superior Court refused to allow the claim for damages. We can not say that it erred in so doing.\nFrom the knowledge the chancellor had of the proceedings, he seems to have concluded that damages ought not to be allowed, and consequently stated that he would not hear evidence.\nUnless upon the record we can say that appellant was entitled to damages, we can not find that it was error for the court to do as it did.\nPerceiving no error, the order of the Superior Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Breckenridge & Rasmussen, attorneys for appellant.",
      "James H. Teller, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank A. Dunning v. Charles S. Young.\n1. Damages\u2014On Dissolution of an Injunction\u2014Solicitor's Fees.\u2014 The only damages that can be allowed on the dissolution of an injunction are such as result from an improper suing out of the same, and the allowance of solicitor\u2019s fees must be confined to services rendered on the motion to dissolve.\nMotion for Damages, on dissolution of an injunction. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Theodore Brentano, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 7, 1897.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis is an. appeal from a decree of the Superior Court of Cook County, denying appellant an allowance of damages upon the dissolution of an injunction wrongfully sued out.\nOn May 15, 1896, appellee filed his bill of complaint setting up that the license to manufacture and sell patented lamp reflectors, procured by appellant from the owner of the patent, should have been for the joint benefit of appellee and appellant, but that appellant wrongfully took it to himself and claims sole ownership thereof. The bill asked that appellant be decreed to hold such license as trustee for them both; for an injunction restraining him from assigning or disposing of it, and for general relief. And called for an answer under oath.\nOn the 16th an injunction as prayed issued without notice to appellant.\nOn the 21st the sworn answer of appellant was filed denying that the license was. or should have been, taken for the joint benefit of appellee and himself, and claiming that appellee had no interest therein.\nOn the 23d appellant\u2019s motion to dissolve the injunction was called, and ordered placed on the contested motion calendar for the following Monday.\nOn the 25th this motion was heard on bill, answer and arguments, and was denied, and the cause set down for a hearing on the merits. Appellant excepted to the order of the court denying his motion, and prayed an appeal therefrom to this court, which prayer was also denied.\nOn the 29th, the cause being called for a hearing, appellant renewed his motion to dissolve the injunction upon his sworn answer.\nThe court again denied the motion, and directed the hearing proceeded with.\nThe only evidence offered on the hearing was the testimony of appellee, after hearing which the court ordered the injunction dissolved and gave appellant leave to file his suggestion of damages in ten days.\nThe suggestion of damages was filed and, thereafter, on June 15th, came on for a hearing and was disposed of, the court ruling that \u201cthe hearing of testimony on said suggestions of damages and on said motion (for an allowance of damages) would not be proper, as the subject-matter of said motion was covered by the decision of the Appellate Court in Gooch v. Furman, 62 Ill. App. 340.\u201d The motion was denied, and the bill was dismissed.\nBreckenridge & Rasmussen, attorneys for appellant.\nJames H. Teller, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0668-01",
  "first_page_order": 666,
  "last_page_order": 669
}
