{
  "id": 5221669,
  "name": "G. Dorn v. Elizabeth Lawrence",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dorn v. Lawrence",
  "decision_date": "1898-07-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "221",
  "last_page": "222",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 Ill. App. 221"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 118,
    "char_count": 1255,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.586,
    "sha256": "2c9433033c81e0eae639087577d70c4ec50bda3e51836e50621e09b781893c38",
    "simhash": "1:c9cd261060de42d3",
    "word_count": 215
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:43.320990+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "G. Dorn v. Elizabeth Lawrence."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUST\u00cd0B Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe propriety of this appeal is more than questionable. The bill was filed to foreclose a trust deed, securing a noto for $5,000. After the bill was filed, a payment of $3,000 was made, and the bill dismissed as to part of the property without prejudice to complainant\u2019s right to prosecute the bill and foreclose as to the remainder, which was done.\nThe answer filed by the defendant itself sets up the payment of the $3,000 since the filing of the bill.\nIt is claimed that the decree does not support the allegations of the bill, because it finds the balance of the note, principal and interest, due, instead of the original sum claimed in the bill, and makes it a lien upon the remainder of the property, and that thus there is a fatal variance.\nThe decree is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUST\u00cd0B Freeman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles Pickler, attorney for appellant.",
      "Marston, Augur & Tuttle, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "G. Dorn v. Elizabeth Lawrence.\n1. Variance \u2014 Judgment, etc,\u2014The court affirmed the decree for reasons stated in the opinion.\nAppeal, from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Gibbons, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court of the First District, at the March term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July, 16, 1898.\nCharles Pickler, attorney for appellant.\nMarston, Augur & Tuttle, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0221-01",
  "first_page_order": 223,
  "last_page_order": 224
}
