{
  "id": 5262167,
  "name": "General Electric Ry. Co. v. Chicago & W. I. R. R. Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "General Electric Ry. Co. v. Chicago & W. I. R. R.",
  "decision_date": "1899-10-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "640",
  "last_page": "640",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 640"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "79 Ill. App. 569",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5789545
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/79/0569-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1833,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.9605111234740245e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3125149381295975
    },
    "sha256": "046f8bbc74b374635859672d3b0c4a8ae5e61ed430473443fc99dd7ab2ad9c11",
    "simhash": "1:16892be8293bb49e",
    "word_count": 322
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:05:11.837712+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "General Electric Ry. Co. v. Chicago & W. I. R. R. Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nA' motion is entered by appellee to dismiss this cause for the reason that a freehold is involved, and therefore an appeal lies only in the Supreme Court. That motion is overruled. While the property of appellee, \"which appellant is about to enter upon and injure, is \u201c fixed and immovable in its character, like realty,\u201d yet, it is not a freehold in the sense in which that term is used in the statute relating to appeals.\nThis cause was before this court at the last term. We then expressed our views upon the case as it was then presented (79 Ill. App. 569). The cause was then exhaustively argued, and now no arguments are filed by either party, but simply short briefs, presumably to comply with the rules of the court. Counsel for appellant say in their brief, \u201c The question is in no way different now from what it was then.\u201d Counsel for appellee say, \u201c This cause is again before this court upon the same question \u201d as before. Therefore our opinion upon the hearing in the case when it was argued before us, is adopted as our opinion in this presentation of the case.\nThe decree of the Superior Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Horton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ferdinand Goss, attorney for appellant; Edwin Walker and Thomas A. Moran, of counsel.",
      "Edgar A. Bancroft and Hamline, Scott & Lord, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "General Electric Ry. Co. v. Chicago & W. I. R. R. Co.\n1. Freehold\u2014When Not Involved.\u2014A freehold is not involved in a proceeding to enjoin a street railway from laying its tracks in a public street, in the sense in which the term \u201cfreehold \u201d is used in the statute relating to appeals.\nBill for an Injunction.\u2014Appeal from Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1899.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 20, 1899.\nFerdinand Goss, attorney for appellant; Edwin Walker and Thomas A. Moran, of counsel.\nEdgar A. Bancroft and Hamline, Scott & Lord, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0640-01",
  "first_page_order": 648,
  "last_page_order": 648
}