{
  "id": 5252890,
  "name": "The Northern Trust Company, Executor, etc., v. William H. Palmer, Executor, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "The Northern Trust Co. v. Palmer",
  "decision_date": "1897-05-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "93",
  "last_page": "95",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 93"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill. App. 153",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        854269
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/16/0153-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 Ill. 110",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2770838
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/86/0110-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. App. 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4955166
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/27/0043-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 3513,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.576,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.961721986493819e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5374068140652216
    },
    "sha256": "0accb55964279c3def42f118f0f3d37e4ff6f1a40a43ecf7e8bfa561af622e87",
    "simhash": "1:d30544e0fd1a6a09",
    "word_count": 613
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Northern Trust Company, Executor, etc., v. William H. Palmer, Executor, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the- opinion of the Court.\nMarie M. Fenton began an action of trespass on the case against Cyrus M. Hawley, upon whom process was served; thereafter the plaintiff and defendant died; thereupon appellant was appointed executor of the last will and testament of Cyrus M. Hawley, and appellee was made executor of Marie M. Fenton.\nThereafter the death of Cyrus M. Hawley and Marie M. Fenton was suggested, and by order of court appellant and appellee were substituted as plaintiff and defendant.\nIt is contended that all the parties to the cause having died, the suit abated and could not be revived.\nWe think that the action of the court in ordering the substitution was within the intent of Secs. 10,11,12 and 13 of Chapter 1 of the Revised Statutes.\nThe action was by a tenant of 210 and 211 Wabash avenue, against his landlord, the owner, for taking down a wall of said building, and thereby damaging the goods of of the deceased, Marie M. Fenton, then in the premises.\nIt appeared in evidence that Hawley, the landlord, made a contract with Simon and Philip Florsheim to take down the south wall of said building, which contract left the contractors at liberty to pursue such method as they saw fit, subject to certain stipulations as to shoring up, not changing the front, etc.\nAppellant contends that the Florsheims were independent contractors, and they alone are responsible for the injury done to the tenant.\nIn actions for torts there are no accessories; those who command and those who do are equally guilty. Hawley was under an obligation not to disturb his tenant in her possession and use; he could not by his agents, the Florsheims, destroy the value of her tenancy, tear down the walls of the building he had rented to her, and not himself be responsible for the injury she suffered. Bishop on Hon-Contract Law, Sec. 604; Cooley on Torts, 547; Village of Jefferson v. Chapman, 27 Ill. App. 43; City of Joliet v. Harwood, 86 Ill. 110; Sherman & Redfield on Negligence, Sec. 176.\nThe. case is not of an injury to one with whom Hawley sustained no contractual relations, as was Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Hennessy, 16 Ill. App. 153.\nHawley procured the doing of damage to his tenant; employed the Florsheims to do that which necessarily damaged her. The injury to her was not the result of negligence on the part of the contractors, but a necessary consequence of their acts, and such as Hawley employed them to do.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jesse Holdom, attorney for appellant.",
      "Remy & Mann, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Northern Trust Company, Executor, etc., v. William H. Palmer, Executor, etc.\n1. Abatement\u2014Death of all the Parties to a Suit.\u2014Under Secs. 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Chapter 1, R. S., a court may order the substitution of the personal representatives of the parties to a suit where all the parties, both plaintiff and defendant, die during the pendency of the suit.\n2. Torts\u2014Liability of Landlord for Acts of an Employe.\u2014In actions for torts there are no accessories, those who command and those who do are equally guilty, and a landlord under an obligation not to disturb his tenant, can not, by his agents, destroy the value of a tenancy, and if he does, he is responsible for the injury inflicted.\nTrespass on the Case, for wrongfully removing the wall of a building. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 6, 1897.\nJesse Holdom, attorney for appellant.\nRemy & Mann, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0093-01",
  "first_page_order": 93,
  "last_page_order": 95
}