{
  "id": 2787580,
  "name": "Henry L. Young et al. v. The Matthiesen and Hegeler Zinc Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Young v. Matthiesen & Hegeler Zinc Co.",
  "decision_date": "1882-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "26",
  "last_page": "27",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "105 Ill. 26"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "70 Ill. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5310305
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "297"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/70/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Conn. 565",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Conn.",
      "case_ids": [
        6755048
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/conn/14/0565-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ill. 387",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ga. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ga.",
      "case_ids": [
        1383585
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ga/16/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 Ill. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5310305
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "297"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/70/0249-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2443,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.157489993551982e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4747456318881912
    },
    "sha256": "1e9ca037c566503c8bb9050ac4ff6cb3da20a47f211e2bb6fae53e7fe127b811",
    "simhash": "1:9e247d765c57a632",
    "word_count": 433
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:08:23.845538+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry L. Young et al. v. The Matthiesen and Hegeler Zinc Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scholfield\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis appeal is simply from an order of the court below refusing to allow the appellants to become parties defendant to a hill in chancery filed against other parties. No final decree has been entered in the case, and until such decree is entered how can it possibly be known- that this refusal has .prejudiced appellants\u2019 rights? It may be that decree will accomplish, without appellants\u2019 intervention, precisely what they claim ought to be done. The order is clearly interlocutory, and therefore not the subject of an appeal. Racine and Mississippi R. R. Co. v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. 70 Ill. 249; Gage v. Eich et al. 56 id. 297; Woodside v. Woodside, 21 id. 207.\nThe appeal must he dismissed, and it is so ordered.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scholfield"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Mason Brothers, and Mr. Charles Blanchard, for the appellants:",
      "Mr. E. F. Bull, for the appellee:"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry L. Young et al. v. The Matthiesen and Hegeler Zinc Company.\nFiled at Ottawa November 20, 1882.\nAppeal\u2014does not lie from interlocutory order. An appeal will not lie from a mere interlocutory order in a suit in chancery, as, from an order refusing to allow one to become a party defendant to the bill, there being no final decree in the case. Until such decree is entered it can not be known that the refusal has prejudiced the applicant\u2019s rights.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District; \u2014heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of LaSalle county; the Hon. Geo. W. Stipp, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Mason Brothers, and Mr. Charles Blanchard, for the appellants:\nAny person interested in the subject matter of a bill in chancery has a right to be made a party, upon his petition. 16 Ga. 137; Marsh v. Green, 79 Ill. 387.\nMr. E. F. Bull, for the appellee:\nAppellants do not show any such special interest in any imaginary damage that may be done to the streets, as will authorize them to be heard. Their interests must be protected by the corporate authorities\u2014by the sovereign power. High on Injunctions, 291, sec. 522, and eases there cited; Bigelow v. Hartford, 14 Conn. 565.\nThe order refusing appellants\u2019 application to compel the appellee to amend its bill and make them parties defendant, is not one from which an appeal can be taken, and appellee therefore moves the court for an order dismissing the appeal. Racine and Mississippi R. R. Co. v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. 70 Ill. 249; Gage v. Eich et al. 56 id. 297; Woodside v. Woodside, 21 id. 207; 2 Daniell\u2019s Ch. Pr. 1543, and cases cited in note 1."
  },
  "file_name": "0026-01",
  "first_page_order": 26,
  "last_page_order": 27
}