{
  "id": 5190851,
  "name": "May Arentz et al. v. George Reilly et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arentz v. Reilly",
  "decision_date": "1896-11-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "307",
  "last_page": "309",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 307"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "140 Ill. 289",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5808017
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/140/0289-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Ill. App. 476",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        864995
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/18/0476-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 Ill. 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3140017
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/157/0521-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2417,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.822123157029675e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49768500016796346
    },
    "sha256": "1ac8b06638a32caaeaef339c935478fed1a8c6fbaf94ec772ddd206c945fabb8",
    "simhash": "1:6876b6e2914e97da",
    "word_count": 417
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "May Arentz et al. v. George Reilly et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis appeal has been dismissed upon a \u201c short record,\u201d and the appellees ask that damages be awarded.\nThe case is, that a decree was entered that the \u201c defendants (appellants) pay\u201d the amounts adjudged in favor of the appellees in a proceeding to enforce mechanic\u2019s liens, and \u201c in default of said judgment being made,\u201d the property involved should be sold. The appellees urge that this is a money decree, and for that reason to be distinguished from Hamburger v. Glover, 157 Ill. 521, which was an appeal by parties claiming a mechanic\u2019s lien, from a decree dismissing their petition and foreclosing a mortgage, but not directing them to pay anything.\nSo much of the present decree as directs the appellants to pay, would, if the decree were construed to be a personal decree, be erroneous. Cases cited in Sprague v. Green, 18 Ill. App. 476.\nBut such decrees are construed as being, not decrees against persons, but alternative, \u201c that if the money should not be paid within the time limited, then the premises should be sold.\u201d Kirby v. Runals, 140 Ill. 289.\nIt was therefore not a decree \u201c for the recovery of money against the appellant,\u201d and is governed by the case first cited.\nIf a complete record were here, we might determine whether damages for delay should be awarded under section 23, chapter 33 of the statute, but a short record does not show whether there was, or was not, good ground for appeal.\nThe damages asked are denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Albert 1ST. Eastman, attorney for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "May Arentz et al. v. George Reilly et al.\n1. Decebes\u2014Personal and Alternative.\u2014 A decree which directs that if the money provided for shall not be paid within the time limited, then the premises involved be sold, is not a personal decree for the payment of money against the defendant, but is an alternative decree.\n3. Damages\u2014On Dismissal of Appeals\u2014Short Record.\u2014Where a short record does not show whether there was or was not good ground for an appeal, the court can not determine whether damages for delay should be awarded under section 33 of chapter 33, B. S., entitled, \u201c Costs,\u201d and such damages are denied.\nMechanic\u2019s Liens.\u2014Motion for damages on dismissal of an appeal in this court. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Murray F. Tuley, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1806.\nMotion denied.\nOpinion filed November 5, 1896.\nAlbert 1ST. Eastman, attorney for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0307-01",
  "first_page_order": 305,
  "last_page_order": 307
}