{
  "id": 2823409,
  "name": "Edward Pulsifer v. Asmus Clauson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pulsifer v. Clauson",
  "decision_date": "1881-11-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "557",
  "last_page": "558",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "100 Ill. 557"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 148,
    "char_count": 2202,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "sha256": "1539bc56faea88be70b5088ba77037fddaafd2eff28ade479edf46588682ca59",
    "simhash": "1:d528b16052208ef2",
    "word_count": 368
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:32:43.701129+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward Pulsifer v. Asmus Clauson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scott\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action on the case, brought by Edward F. Pulsifer against Asmus Clauson, to recover damages alleged to have been occasioned to the lands of plaintiff, described in his declaration, by the wrongful conduct of defendant in preventing the natural flow of water from his premises, by stopping the natural channels or water passages, so that plaintiff\u2019s lands were overflowed with water, thereby rendering the lands untillable, to the great damage of plaintiff. On the trial in the Superior Court the issues were found for defendant, and the court rendered judgment against plaintiff for costs. That judgment wras affirmed in the Appellate Court for the First District, and plaintiff brings the case to this court on appeal.\nThe action is one sounding in damages. No judgment was rendered in the trial court for $1000, or for any amount in excess of .that sum, exclusive of costs; and as the judges of the Appellate Court have not certified the case \u201cinvolves questions of law of such importance, either on account of principal or collateral interests, as that it should be passed upon by the Supreme Court, \u201d it is plain the judgment of the Appellate Court is final, and this court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.\nFor the reason assigned the appeal will be dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Jno. M. G-artside, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Campbell & Custer, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward Pulsifer v. Asmus Clauson.\nFiled at Ottawa November 10, 1881.\nAppeal\u2014from an Appellate Court. In an action on the case for flooding the plaintiff\u2019s land by stopping the natural channels or water passages, where judgment is rendered for the defendant, the judgment of the Appellate Court in affirmance is final on the plaintiff, and he can not bring the case to this court without a certificate of the Appellate Court that it \u201cinvolves questions of law of such importance, either on account of principal or collateral interests, as that it should be passed upon by the Supreme Court.\u201d\nAppeal from the Appellate-Court for the First District;\u2014 heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Sidney Smith, Judge, presiding.\nMr. Jno. M. G-artside, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Campbell & Custer, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0557-01",
  "first_page_order": 557,
  "last_page_order": 558
}