{
  "id": 5268508,
  "name": "Mary A. Railton v. The People et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Railton v. People",
  "decision_date": "1899-11-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "384",
  "last_page": "385",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "85 Ill. App. 384"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "83 Ill. App. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5258137
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/83/0396-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 Ill. App. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5258137
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/83/0396-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1958,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.519,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37860855980406577
    },
    "sha256": "db521ccebc2c5cc026c869644e9239be1da3b6c6f40d9c7a29e234a54f6d0b09",
    "simhash": "1:20834ef7727b4ec6",
    "word_count": 352
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:07:53.008228+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary A. Railton v. The People et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from an order entered June 1, 1898, imposing a fine upon appellant for contempt of court in interfering with the possession of certain property by a receiver of the court, and in interfering with such receiver in the collection of rents ordered by the court to be collected by him. Two fines were imposed upon appellant in this cause upon different dates for like, though not the same, contempt. A separate appeal was taken from each order imposing a fine. One of said appeals was before the other division of this court. The record is the same and the briefs and arguments are the same in the two appeals. Mo question of law is involved in one that is not involved in the other.\nWe have examined the opinion in that other case (83 Ill. App. 396), and fully concur in the conclusion there reached.\nWe therefore see no reason why we should do more than to refer to that opinion and adopt the same as the opinion of this court in the case at bar, which we do.\nThe order of the Superior Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moses Solomon, attorney for appellant.",
      "Ho appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary A. Railton v. The People et al.\n1. Former Decisions \u2014 Distinct Fines. \u2014 Where two fines were imposed upon a party for contempt in the same proceedings, but not for the same act, and an appeal taken from each order imposing a fine, one of which appeals has been before and decided by the other division of this court (the records, briefs, argument, and questions of law being the same in both appeals), there is no reason why this court-should do more than to refer to the opinion of that division and adopt it as the opinion of this court. (Railton v. The People, 83 Ill. App. 396.)\nContempt Proceedings.\u2014Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Farlin Q. Ball, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 7, 1899.\nMoses Solomon, attorney for appellant.\nHo appearance for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0384-01",
  "first_page_order": 394,
  "last_page_order": 395
}