{
  "id": 5788369,
  "name": "Samuel E. Webbe v. Henry E. Weaver et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Webbe v. Weaver",
  "decision_date": "1899-01-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "657",
  "last_page": "657",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 Ill. App. 657"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 646",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5158585
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/60/0646-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill. 24",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2587745
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/16/0024-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 75,
    "char_count": 583,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.567,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1703620558573106
    },
    "sha256": "8259321df06ca1acff4ac5af17c0fa3129e1364aa69f6cfc1be135c525c4cc69",
    "simhash": "1:cc72cc13cbfbd2a4",
    "word_count": 101
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:55:44.895596+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel E. Webbe v. Henry E. Weaver et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [],
    "attorneys": [
      "Defrees, Brace & Ritter, attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "E. H. Morris, attorney for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel E. Webbe v. Henry E. Weaver et al.\nError to the Circuit Court of Cook Countv.\nOpinion filed January 26, 1899.\nThis was an action for use and occupation. The evidence showed that the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties, but that the occupation was wrongful. Held, that there could be no recovery, citing McNair v. Schwartz, 16 Ill. 24, and Railway Co. v. Spry Lumber Co., 60 Ill. App. 646. The judgment was reversed and the cause remanded.\nDefrees, Brace & Ritter, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nE. H. Morris, attorney for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0657-02",
  "first_page_order": 667,
  "last_page_order": 667
}