{
  "id": 1673293,
  "name": "John H. Van Housen v. George R. Thorne et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Van Housen v. Thorne",
  "decision_date": "1900-07-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "245",
  "last_page": "245",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 Ill. App. 245"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. App. 510",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5791425
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/76/0510-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 179",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5190367
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/67/0179-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1727,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06328168167333308
    },
    "sha256": "8fc03da668dce9218b6aee51826de97cf1548e2d896e751f54829ccb0fd97b1b",
    "simhash": "1:5d121ed31f6377ca",
    "word_count": 296
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:41:07.083929+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John H. Van Housen v. George R. Thorne et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellant filed his cross-bill in a certain cause in- chancery, wherein one Quimby is complainant, and he is one of numerous defendants. On motion in said cause it was ordered that his cross-bill be stricken from the files, and this appeal is from such order.\nThe original cause begun by Quimby is still pending and undetermined in the Superior Court, and the point is made and pressed by appellees, that the order striking the cross-bill from the files was purely interlocutory, and not subject to be appealed from.\nNo reply to the point is made' by appellant. We have examined into the record sufficiently to satisfy us that the order was an interlocutory one.\nFrom anything that appears, appellant may yet obtain all the relief to which he is entitled upon a final disposition of the case by the Superior Court. But whether so or not, the case is not subject to appeal by piecemeal. The authorities are almost too numerous to be cited. Some of them may be found in French v. Bellows Falls Savings Institution, 67 Ill. App. 179; Howard v. Boyd, Ibid. 572; Lawrence v. Paden, 76 Ill. App. 510.\nThe appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered. Appeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "S. A. Wight, attorney for appellant.",
      "George W. Brown, attorney for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John H. Van Housen v. George R. Thorne et al.\n1. Chancery Practice\u2014Order Striking a Cross-Bill from the Files \u25a0 Interlocutory.-\u2014An order striking a cross-bill from the files is interlocutory and not appealable.\nBill for Relief.\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, 1899.\nAppeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed July 17, 1900.\nS. A. Wight, attorney for appellant.\nGeorge W. Brown, attorney for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0245-01",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 265
}
