{
  "id": 5191280,
  "name": "People of the State of' Illinois ex rel. H. D. Fortune v. The President and Board of Trustees of the Town of Pleasant Hill",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Fortune v. President & Board of Trustees",
  "decision_date": "1896-11-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "415",
  "last_page": "416",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 415"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "90 Mo. 560",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo.",
      "case_ids": [
        456874
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mo/90/0560-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 160,
    "char_count": 1949,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.501,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35602056336102994
    },
    "sha256": "c3a15d074a6b2e524fc7eedd5a9b78570ccdfc0e1fc039f1673032b6753b20bc",
    "simhash": "1:8a425e72839833df",
    "word_count": 340
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "People of the State of' Illinois ex rel. H. D. Fortune v. The President and Board of Trustees of the Town of Pleasant Hill."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThis was a petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the president and trustees of the appellee town to remove a certain fence which, as the petitions alleged, had been erected upon and obstructed a street of the town..\nThe answer denied the locus in quo was a street of the municipality.\nUpon a hearing the Circuit Court dismissed the petition.\nIt was developed by the testimony that it was a matter not free from doubt whether a street existed as claimed, and that the town, in good faith, denied- the existence thereof.\nIt was not a case where, without the writ, there would be a denial of justice.\nAn appropriate and effectual remedy is provided by Secs. 221 and 222 of the Criminal Code. .Resort to it would have brought into court the person who built the fence, the wrong-doer, if there was a street there. The writ of mandamus if granted would expose the defendant in error to the hazard of liability in damages.\nThe court correctly ruled it was not proper to coerce the town by mandamus to exercise jurisdiction over the alleged street. 14 Amer. and Eng. Ency. of Law, 206; Elliot on Roads and Streets, 517; State ex rel. v. Buhler, 90 Mo. 560.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Williams & Williams, attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "Matthews, Higbee & Grigsby, attorneys for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "People of the State of' Illinois ex rel. H. D. Fortune v. The President and Board of Trustees of the Town of Pleasant Hill.\n1. Mandamus\u2014Coercion of Municipal Corporations.\u2014It is not proper to coerce a town by mandamus to exercise jurisdiction over an alleged street, the existence of which it in good faith denies, where such writ, if granted, would expose the town to the hazard of liability in damages.\nMandamus.\u2014Error to the Circuit Court of Pike County; the Hon. Jefferson Orr, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 21, 1896.\nWilliams & Williams, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nMatthews, Higbee & Grigsby, attorneys for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0415-01",
  "first_page_order": 413,
  "last_page_order": 414
}
