{
  "id": 5291462,
  "name": "City of Charleston v. Andrew Moore et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Charleston v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1901-02-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "51",
  "last_page": "52",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "94 Ill. App. 51"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "184 Ill. 613",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3222189
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/184/0613-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. 262",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. 382",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        823930
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/78/0382-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 203,
    "char_count": 2585,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2753739118680978e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6157258589207324
    },
    "sha256": "a802bafda0cac194cdfa017bbdc0ea9fcdfed134925b0eee47850c26714a7a50",
    "simhash": "1:eb7c264b2c0dae30",
    "word_count": 454
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:05:08.743041+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Charleston v. Andrew Moore et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Me. Presiding Justice Haeker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Coles County awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus, compelling the mayor and city council of Charleston to pass an ordinance disconnecting from the city certain lands of appellees lying within its corporate limits. The petition was in proper form and contained all the statutory requirements.\nIt is contended that the territory sought to be disconnected does not come within the intent and meaning of the statute, because, over thirty years ago, it was platted for taxing purposes by an assessor, as lots in an assessor\u2019s division, and has been conveyed from time to time under such description. It is clear to our minds that the expression, \u201c laid out into city or village lots or blocks,\u201d as it appears in the statute, has no reference to such a subdivision.\nIt is next contended that the court was not warranted in awarding the writ, because only the city was made a defendant in the petition and the members of the city council were not made parties. Where mandamus is resorted to, to compel the passage of a city ordinance in performance of a duty imposed by law, it is only necessary to make the city a party defendant; but when the writ issues it should be against the individual members of the city council. Village of Glencoe v. The People ex rel. John A. Owen, 78 Ill. 382; The People ex rel. Ins. Co. v. Getzendaner, 137 Ill. 262.\nThe case is like Young et al. v. Cary et al., 184 Ill. 613, where the Supreme Court, reversing the judgment of this court, held, that on a petition to disconnect territory from a village, on a proper showing by petition and proofs, the president and board of trustees of the village could exercise no discretion. In the light of that authority the Circuit Court properly awarded the writ in this case, and the judgment will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Me. Presiding Justice Haeker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Al. Rat, City Attorney, J. H. Marshall and Chas. C. Lee, attorneys for appellant.",
      "J ames F. Hughes, attorney for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Charleston v. Andrew Moore et al.\n1. Parties\u2014In Proceedings by Mandamus Against Cities.\u2014Where mandamus proceedings are resorted to, to compel the passage of a city ordinance in performance of a duty imposed by law, it is only necessary to make the city a party defendant; but when the writ issues it should be against the individual members of the city council.\nMandamus.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Coles County; the Hon, Frank K. Dunn, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1900.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 28, 1901.\nAl. Rat, City Attorney, J. H. Marshall and Chas. C. Lee, attorneys for appellant.\nJ ames F. Hughes, attorney for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0051-01",
  "first_page_order": 75,
  "last_page_order": 76
}