{
  "id": 5265534,
  "name": "John A. Lomax v. Mary Ragor et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lomax v. Ragor",
  "decision_date": "1899-12-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "679",
  "last_page": "680",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "85 Ill. App. 679"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "144 Ill. 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3081075
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/144/0313-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. App. 430",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4957222
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/27/0430-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5241810
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/57/0340-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2901,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.583,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15709680371326668
    },
    "sha256": "d9856f0784e74b49d25b90fef60005e9caa3af163127b866a87d4b5c6b300ccb",
    "simhash": "1:197e55a913892c10",
    "word_count": 498
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:07:53.008228+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John A. Lomax v. Mary Ragor et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was a bill in chancery for an injunction against the appellees from trespassing upon certain premises.\nUpon final hearing, the temporary injunction that had been granted ex parte, upon the filing of the bill, was dissolved, and leave was given to appellees to file their suggestion of damages, which was done and upon evidence heard an order was entered assessing appellees\u2019 damages at $500.\nIt is from such order this appeal is prosecuted.\nThe only remedy prayed for in the bill was for an injunction, and the only basis for the allowance of the damages assessed was for solicitor\u2019s services rendered in said cause in and about the dissolution of the injunction.\nThe only witness testifying as to the solicitor\u2019s fees was the then and here solicitor for the appellees, and his testimony was that his \u201cservices were worth $1,000;\u201d that he had no contract, but his claim was based upon a quantum, meruit; that he came'first into the case upon the argument upon the testimony before the master; that he had receipts (not introduced in evidence) for $500 paid by his clients to other attorneys, prior to his connection with the case, for carrying on the litigation, but knew nothing about such pajTment except what had been told him by his clients and such other attorneys, and the receipts themselves.\nThere was no evidence that appellees had ever paid the witness anything or had been charged anything by him. All that is competent in his testimony, so far as the question involved is concerned, is that in his opinion his services were worth $1,000.\nAs said in the leading case upon the subject, Jevne v. Osgood, 57 Ill. 340 \u201c the attorneys in this case only gave it as their opinion that the fee they named would be reasonable. Such proof is not proper and sufficient upon which to base the decree. It should be, what has the defendant paid, or become liable to pay, and is it the usual and customary fee paid for such services.\u201d\nSee also Rosenthal v. Boas, 27 Ill. App. 430; Lambert v. Alcorn, 144 Ill. 313.\n, Because solicitor\u2019s fees were not competently proved, the order will b.e reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jambs Maher, attorney for appellant.",
      "Henry W. Brant, attorney for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John A. Lomax v. Mary Ragor et al.\n1. Injunctions\u2014Evidence of Damages on Dissolution.\u2014Upon the dissolution of an injunction, the measure of damages should be what the defendant has paid, or become liable to pay, and the usual and customary fee paid for such services to attorneys for their services, not what the attorneys in the case give it as their opinion would be a reasonable fee.\nInjunction.\u2014Assessment of damages on dissolution. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1898.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 5, 1899.\nJambs Maher, attorney for appellant.\nHenry W. Brant, attorney for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0679-01",
  "first_page_order": 689,
  "last_page_order": 690
}