{
  "id": 5297484,
  "name": "The People, etc., ex rel., etc., v. School Directors, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. School Directors",
  "decision_date": "1901-10-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "108",
  "last_page": "109",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "97 Ill. App. 108"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "190 Ill. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3242568
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/190/0390-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 Ill. 461",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3006251
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/139/0461-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 Ill. 20",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5412429
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/128/0020-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2293,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15749528254349965
    },
    "sha256": "78bd391f7d7f9b3d34de66a94f6ed103f273f350bb399213269a141d082ab164",
    "simhash": "1:dff85621c9ec32ba",
    "word_count": 394
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:10:34.341512+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People, etc., ex rel., etc., v. School Directors, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion per Curiam.\nThis was an information in the nature of a quo warranto, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, by the plaintiff m error against defendants in error, requiring defendants in error to show cause by what warrant they claim to be a body politic and corporate.\nAt the threshold of investigation of this case lies the question as to our jurisdiction; for if we have not jurisdiction of the subject-matter, we are under no duty to investigate, and have no power to determine any of the issues raised, no more those that pertain to the rules of procedure in our court than those that pertain to the merits of the case.\nThe .privilege or right to be a body politic and corporate is a franchise. Any judgment that could be properly rendered in this case must determine whether the franchise claimed does in fact and in law exist, for the litigation has no other aim, and so a franchise is necessarily involved. The following cases are conclusive : Smith v. The People, etc., ex rel. etc., 55 Ill. App.508; People, ex rel., etc., v. O\u2019Hara et al., 128 Ill. 20; People, etc., ex rel., etc., v. Cooper et al., 139 Ill. 461; School Trustees v. School Directors, 190 Ill. 390. The statute provides that \u201cAppeals and writs of error shall lie from the final orders, judgments or decrees of the Circuit * * * Court directly to the Supreme Court, in all cases involving a franchise.\u201d This case involves a franchise; we therefore have no jurisdiction. The cause is dismissed, with leave, to plaintiff in error to withdraw papers.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Opinion per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Laird & Laird, attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "William H. Green, attorney for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People, etc., ex rel., etc., v. School Directors, etc.\n1. Appellate Court Jurisdiction\u2014 Where a Franchise is Involved. \u2014Any judgment which can properly be rendered in a case where this court is called upon to determine whether an alleged franchise does in fact and in law exist, and where the litigation has no other aim or purpose, a franchise is involved.\n2. Franchise \u2014 Defined.\u2014The privilege or right to be a body politic and corporate, is a franchise.\nQuo Warranto. \u2014 Error to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County; the Hon. Enoch E. Newlin, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the August term, 1901.\nDismissed.\nOpinion filed October 21, 1901.\nLaird & Laird, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam H. Green, attorney for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0108-01",
  "first_page_order": 134,
  "last_page_order": 135
}