{
  "id": 5241034,
  "name": "Paul Merkel v. William Schmidt Baking Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Merkel v. William Schmidt Baking Co.",
  "decision_date": "1897-12-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "239",
  "last_page": "242",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 Ill. App. 239"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 5033,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.369130595172464e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5146605072342055
    },
    "sha256": "2f758bafb9ffeab6aab836501c9ab155f2e89287dc86a928a90a11f9cb963995",
    "simhash": "1:bba1154464632ea6",
    "word_count": 861
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:22:34.845989+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Paul Merkel v. William Schmidt Baking Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Windes\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nA bill was filed by appellee in the Superior Court of Cook County, by which it was' prayed that an injunction, to be directed to appellant, restraining him. from soliciting the trade of divers of customers of appellee who comprise Bowmanville route, and from making sales of bakery goods or breadstuffs, or soliciting trade of any person in any territory known as Bowmanville route, issue. Indorsed on the bill appears the following:\n\u201c I hereby recommend that a writ of injunction issue in accordance with the prayer of the within bill of complaint, without notice, upon complainant filing bond in the penal sum of one thousand dollars with sureties to be approved by the clerk. Dated September 9, 1897.\nHiram Barber, Master in Chancery.\nUnderneath which appears also the following: \u201c H. M. Shepard, Judge. September 10, 1897.\u201d\nThe abstract shows there was an injunction bond signed by complainant, with surety in the sum of $1,000, approved by the clerk, and an appeal bond by appellant from \u201c interlocutory order of injunction,\u201d approved by the clerk of the Superior Court on September 30,1897. The abstract shows no further recitals of these bonds.\nThere does not appear from the abstract or from the record, to have been any order of the court that an injunction issue, or that in fact, a writ of injunction was issued, except as may be inferred from the recommendation of the master in chancery, and of the judge above set forth, and the fact that the court refused on motion of appellant,-to dissolve \u201c the injunction heretofore granted;\u201d and also that the court allowed an amendment to the bill \u201c without prejudice to the injunction granted in this cause;\u201d that on the 18th day of October, 1897, an application of the complainant for a rule upon the defendant in said cause, to show why he should not be attached for contempt in violating \u201ctheinjunction issued\u201d was referred to a master in chancery; and that afterward, on the same day, the court examined the surety upon the injunction bond as to its sufficiency, and approved said bond as to its form and sufficiency \u201c without prejudice to the injunction issued herein.\u201d\nIn the record the clerk has given a certified copy of the injunction- bond, which recites, among other things, that a bill had been filed by appellee against appellant, praying \u201can injunction to restrain the above named defendant from soliciting trade in bakery goods or breadstuffs of any person or persons included in the territory known to the parties hereto as the Bowmanville route, in the county of Cook,\u201d and that the court had \u201c allowed an injunction for that purpose, according to the prayer of said bill,\u201d upon said appellee giving bond and security as provided by law. . Said clerk also certified a copy of a certain appeal bond given by appellant, which recites, among other things, that said appellee did on the 10th day of September, 1S97, in the Superior Court of Cook County, \u201c on an interlocutory order obtain an injunction against said defendant, Paul Merkel, restraining him from soliciting the trade of divers of customers of the William Schmidt Baking Company, the complainant, who comprise the Bowmanville route, and from making sales of bakery goods or breadstuffs. or soliciting the trade of any person included in the territory known as Bowmanville route.\u201d\nThere is no certificate of the clerk of the Superior Court in the record, that the transcript filed in this court is complete, and for aught that we can tell there may never have been an injuction order, or may be an injunction order and writ, which may or may not be the same as recited in the injunction bond or the appeal bond, as each bond recites a different order.\nAs the record contains neither order nor writ of injunction, we are at a loss to tell what, if any, order was made or writ of injunction issued by the Superior Court.\nIn this class of cases appeals are, by the statute, allowed from an interlocutory order or decree entered in any suit pending in any court of this State, granting an injunction, etc., to this court. No appeal lies from an order granting an injunction, except by virtue of the statute.\nThe record should show some order of the court as the basis for an appeal.\nIn absence of an order for injunction in the record we feel constrained to dismiss the appeal in this case, of the court\u2019s own motion, which is done accordingly. Appeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Windes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Max Robinson, attorney for appellant.",
      "Wm. M. Johnson, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Paul Merkel v. William Schmidt Baking Co.\nt. Appeal\u2014From an Order Granting an Injunction.\u2014No appeal lies from an order granting an injunction, except by virtue of the statute.\n2. Same \u2014Order for. to Appear in the Record.\u2014The record should show some order of the court as the basis for an appeal.\nBill, for an injunction. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Henry M. Shepard, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1897. Appeal dismissed. Opinion filed December 16, 1897.\nMax Robinson, attorney for appellant.\nWm. M. Johnson, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0239-01",
  "first_page_order": 237,
  "last_page_order": 240
}