{
  "id": 3227045,
  "name": "The Liquid Carbonic Acid Manufacturing Company v. C. F. Adolph Convert et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Liquid Carbonic Acid Manufacturing Co. v. Convert",
  "decision_date": "1900-06-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "334",
  "last_page": "335",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 Ill. 334"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. App. 39",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5255065
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/82/0039-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 Ill. 619",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3162872
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/175/0619-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 Ill. 619",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3162872
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/175/0619-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 2348,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.586,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1223136075451134e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5737355730005881
    },
    "sha256": "9396bb665fa01d808acaec5bb7c553ba162dcfc51a3eb207717c86fbdfca65a0",
    "simhash": "1:c86886e57b15d69a",
    "word_count": 381
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:15.353008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Liquid Carbonic Acid Manufacturing Company v. C. F. Adolph Convert et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Phillips\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe questions involved in this case are fully determined in Smith v. Michigan Buggy Co. 175 Ill. 619, adversely to the views of the appellant. It is unnecessary to repeat their discussion.\nThe judgment of the Appellate Court for the First District is affirmed.\njudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Phillips"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alden, Latham & Young, for appellant.",
      "Israel Cowen, and Maurice M. Houseman, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Liquid Carbonic Acid Manufacturing Company v. C. F. Adolph Convert et al.\nOpinion filed June 21, 1900.\nThis case is controlled by the decision in Smith v. Michigan Buggy Co. 175 Ill. 619.\nLiquid Carbonic Acid Manf. Co. v. Convert, 82 Ill. App. 39, affirmed.\nAppeal from the Branch Appellate Court for the First District;\u2014heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding.\nWe take the following statement of facts from the opinion of the Appellate Court:\n\u201cThis is an action for malicious prosecution. The declaration alleges that the defendant Convert had been formerly employed by the plaintiff corporation as one of its superintendents and was discharged for insubordination and fraud; that thereupon he organized a rival company, and then, for the purpose of injuring the good name and credit of the plaintiff, and \u2018to have said plaintiff adjudged insolvent and wholly ruin said plaintiff, \u2019 made an application for the appointment of a receiver \"to wind up its affairs as an insolvent corporation, and made an affidavit that the plaintiff was in an insolvent condition, about to dispose of its assets. The other defendants are charged with having conspired with Convert for the purposes aforesaid, and with having advised and procured the action complained of [they being his attorneys in the original suit.] It is averred that a hearing of the application for a receiver was had upon affidavits filed in support thereof; that thereupon the application for a receiver was denied and the prosecution of such application then and there abandoned. It is not alleged that the suit in which the application was made has been determined. Apparently it has not been. The declaration was demurred to generally and specially, and the demurrer having been sustained the plaintiff elected to stand by its declaration. The suit was\u2019dismissed and plaintiff appeals.\u201d\nAlden, Latham & Young, for appellant.\nIsrael Cowen, and Maurice M. Houseman, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0334-01",
  "first_page_order": 334,
  "last_page_order": 335
}