{
  "id": 5175750,
  "name": "City of Decatur et al. v. Ann Rogers et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Decatur v. Rogers",
  "decision_date": "1898-06-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "658",
  "last_page": "659",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 Ill. App. 658"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 2413,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "sha256": "76c7ac470bdd31ecc3398292d311d27429a68fc3453f46fffc0edda4c38407ba",
    "simhash": "1:d7f2aebf857b9d88",
    "word_count": 411
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:06.025093+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Decatur et al. v. Ann Rogers et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellants, on a bill of complaint in chancery filed against them by the appellees in the Circuit Court of Macon County, were temporarily enjoined from settling with S. A. Tuttle & Co., for work done, and material furnished under and by virtue of \u201c An ordinance providing for the improvement of West Eldorado street from Van Dyke street west to the west end of said Eldorado street,\u201d passed by the city council of Decatur, and from paying said firm any money whatever on account of a contract between them and the city of Decatur for the making of said improvement, and from issuing and delivering to them any bonds, vouchers or other evidence of indebtedness of the said city, in payinent of deferred installments of special taxes mentioned in said ordinance, and from paying them any moneys whatever on account of said alleged improvement, until a further hearing of the cause.\nThe temporary injunction was ordered to issue upon motion of the appellees, based upon their bill of complaint sworn to.\nThe appellants resisted said motion and excepted to the court making this order for the temporary injunction, and' bring the case to this court, claiming that the facts set out in the bill of complaint did not warrant the granting of the temporary injunction ordered.\nWe have carefully read the bill and the briefs of counsel for the parties, and after fully considering them we think the order of the Circuit Court granting the temporary injunction set out in this record was justified from the facts set out in said bill of complaint; and until said bill is answered and the cause heard the appellees were entitled to the preliminar injunction that was awarded.\nOrder affirmed.-",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. M. Lee and Mills Bros., solicitors for appellants.",
      "Wm. T. Cussins, W. C. Johns and H. Crea, solicitors for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Decatur et al. v. Ann Rogers et al.\nI. Injunctions\u2014The Granting of a Temporary Injunction Sustained. \u2014The court holds that the action of the Circuit Court in granting a temporary injunction in this case was justified by the facts set out in the bill of complaint, and that until the bill is answered and the cause heard the complainants are entitled to the preliminary injunction that was awarded.\nInjunction.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon County; the Hon. Edward P. Vail, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the November term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 3, 1898.\nJ. M. Lee and Mills Bros., solicitors for appellants.\nWm. T. Cussins, W. C. Johns and H. Crea, solicitors for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0658-01",
  "first_page_order": 658,
  "last_page_order": 659
}
