{
  "id": 5283923,
  "name": "B. M. Rogan v. H. M. Eads",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rogan v. Eads",
  "decision_date": "1900-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "157",
  "last_page": "158",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "92 Ill. App. 157"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "163 Ill. 338",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5508989
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/163/0338-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 Ill. 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5426935
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/133/0291-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 Ill. 66",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5417706
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/131/0066-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ill. 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2628977
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/68/0128-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. App. 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5792212
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/76/0601-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 2065,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.07707973269116e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37524291956789757
    },
    "sha256": "fdb87309889431cfd1e7479069ba406e14f189934bf76b590032ebdcb7aaa63a",
    "simhash": "1:9893ed65741fe398",
    "word_count": 367
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:47:26.957327+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "B. M. Rogan v. H. M. Eads."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is the case of a perpetual injunction decreed in favor of the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, restraining the latter from disposing of or enforcing a certain judgment at law. The bill was answered by the plaintiff in error denying all its material allegations.\nDefendant in error says in his brief, that the chancellor \u201cheard the evidence of many witnesses and found the facts alleged in the bill of complaint were true.\u201d\nIf that statement dehors the record is true, it is unfortunate that the transcript before us does not sustain it.\nHo evidence whatsoever appears in the record and no findings of fact are contained in the decree.\nPresumptions that will aid a judgment at law do hot exist in favor of a decree in chancery. We may not presume that any evidence was given in the court below except such as the decree recites, or is otherwise made to appear. Farwell v. Patterson, 76 Ill. App. 601; and in addition to the authorities there cited see McIntosh v. Saunders, 68 Ill. 128; Baird v. Powers, 131 Ill. 66; Ryan v. Sanford, 133 Ill. 291, and Jele v. Lemberger, 163 Ill. 338.\nThe evidence, if there was any, not being preserved in the record in any of the various methods whereby it might have been, there is nothing before us to support the decree, and it must be reversed, and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rosenthal, Kurz & Hirsohl, attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "D. L. Carmichael and J. E. Hurtubise, attorneys for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "B. M. Rogan v. H. M. Eads.\n1. Presumptions\u2014In Aid of Judgments at Law Do Not Apply to Decrees.\u2014Presumptions which will aid a judgment at law do not exist in favor of decrees in chancery and the court will not presume that any evidence was given in the court below except such as appears by the recitals of the decree or is otherwise made to appear.\nBill for an Injunction.\u2014Error to the Superior Court of Cook County. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1899.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 20, 1900.\nRosenthal, Kurz & Hirsohl, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nD. L. Carmichael and J. E. Hurtubise, attorneys for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0157-01",
  "first_page_order": 181,
  "last_page_order": 182
}