{
  "id": 5191558,
  "name": "John J. Curran v. Patrick McGrath",
  "name_abbreviation": "Curran v. McGrath",
  "decision_date": "1897-01-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "566",
  "last_page": "567",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 566"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "95 Ill. 179",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2720810
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/95/0179-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 Ill. 281",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5436626
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/134/0281-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 Ill. 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3060197
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/148/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Ill. 93",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2842580
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/97/0093-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ill. 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2606928
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/62/0354-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 2931,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.387992920625662e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5153312027071849
    },
    "sha256": "89587be36e251c19139253db46ab22d8e835f410ac9a402f9118e1c2edcbf2bb",
    "simhash": "1:41a78420bf19525c",
    "word_count": 530
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John J. Curran v. Patrick McGrath."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion op the Court.\nThe law presumes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a married man is the head of his family, and that the property in his possession is his own. Smith v. Slocum, 62 Ill. 354; McVey v. McQuality, 97 Ill. 93.\nThis is an action by the appellee against the appellant for damages to the house and lot of the appellee, which he had occupied with his family for twenty years, and thereafter let to tenants, by the smoke, noise and vibration produced by the manufacturing establishment of the appellant on a lot near to the premises of the appellee\u2014one lot between.\nThe mere noise is a nuisance. C., M. & St. P. Ry. v. Drake, 148 Ill. 226.\nThe smoke and vibration aggravate the nuisance, and the fact that others in the vicinity were in like manner incommoded, is no answer to the action of the appellee. Wylie v. El wood, 134 Ill. 281.\nExcept as to the damages, which was a question for the jury upon conflicting testimony, the only question is whether there was error in permitting the appellee to state after he had, on a question by the appellant, testified that he parted with his title in 1892 for $3,700, that in 1888 he was offered $4,500. Under the Eminent Domain Act, it has been decided that for the petitioner, evidence of the price at which other property in the neighborhood was offered for sale, \u25a0was competent. C. & W. I. R. R. v. Maroney, 95 Ill. 179. Much more would such offers of the same property be competent; and if for the party who wants to take the property, offers to sell are admissible, then, in principle, offers to buy must be admissible for the party who wants to keep. The good faith of the offer and the ability of the party making the offer to pay, would be subject to inquiry.\nThere is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George P. Merrick, attorney for appellant.",
      "James Maher, attorney for appellee; A. W. Browne, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John J. Curran v. Patrick McGrath.\n1. Domestic Relations\u2014Presumptions as to Ownership of Property of Family.\u2014The law presumes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a married man is the head of his family, and that the property in his possession is his own.\n3. Nuisances\u2014Noise and Smoke\u2014Defenses.\u2014Mere noise maybe a nuisance, and smoke and vibration of machinery aggravate such nuisance, and the fact that others in the same vicinity are in like manner incommoded is no answer to an action by an injured party.\n3. Value\u2014What Admissible to Prove.-\u2014Where the value of property is in question, offers to buy are admissible for the party who wishes to keep the property, the good faith of the offer and the ability of the party making the same to pay being subject to inquiry.\nTrespass oil the (lase, for a nuisance. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. William G. Ewing, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 7, 1897.\nGeorge P. Merrick, attorney for appellant.\nJames Maher, attorney for appellee; A. W. Browne, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0566-01",
  "first_page_order": 564,
  "last_page_order": 565
}