{
  "id": 5251311,
  "name": "South Chicago City Railway Co. v. Calumet Electric St. Ry Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "South Chicago City Railway Co. v. Calumet Electric St. Ry. Co.",
  "decision_date": "1897-05-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "254",
  "last_page": "255",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 254"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 353",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5116809
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/51/0353-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 Ill. 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3128853
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/160/0022-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5154399
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/60/0471-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 Ill. 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5498773
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/166/0131-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 2277,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3778061964230347
    },
    "sha256": "be8ce903b3b84d1d4ced438defa097e4b8beff4e04123018e514b014d0a8207a",
    "simhash": "1:fdcbf58447ae19e4",
    "word_count": 399
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "South Chicago City Railway Co. v. Calumet Electric St. Ry Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nEach of these parties operate, under ordinances of the city of Chicago, lines of street railways in the southern part of the city.\nIn 1892, when they were laying tracks they made an agreement by which they both agreed that with the exception of crossings mentioned in the agreement, no crossing at grade by one road over the other should ever be .made.\nThe appellee thereafter procured from the city an ordinance permitting it to put down tracks on more streets, and in putting them down it, vi et armis, made crossings at grade over other places than those the agreement mentioned.\nThe appellant filed this bill to enjoin the appellee from operating over those crossings and from making any more grade .crossings.\nIt is thoroughly settled in this State that a court of chancery will not control a municipal corporation as to the use of streets by railways.\nPhelps v. Un. El. R. R., 166 Ill. 131, affirming same case, 60 Ill. App. 471, is the last reported of the many cases to that effect.\nAnd Doane v. Chicago City Ry., 160 Ill. 22, affirming same case, 51 Ill. App. 353, is a complete answer to all claim of the appellant under the agreement.\nAn agreement not to cross at grade may be\u2014practically probably is\u2014an agreement not to cross at all, and is void as against public policy.\nThe decree dismissing the bill is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Chas. M. Osborn and Sam\u2019l A. Lynde, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Mann, Hayes & Miller, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "South Chicago City Railway Co. v. Calumet Electric St. Ry Co.\n1. Injunctions\u2014Against Construction of Street Railroad.\u2014It is well settled law in this State that a court of chancery will not control a municipal corporation as to the use of streets by railways.\n2. Contracts\u2014Against Public Policy\u2014Agreement of Street Railway Company not to Cross Tracks of Another Company.\u2014An agreement by a street railway company not to cross the track of another similar company at grade is an attempt by the company to bind itself against what the public interest may require and is void, as against public policy.\nBill for Injunction.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Gibbons, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 24, 1897.\nChas. M. Osborn and Sam\u2019l A. Lynde, attorneys for appellant.\nMann, Hayes & Miller, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0254-01",
  "first_page_order": 254,
  "last_page_order": 255
}