{
  "id": 5582743,
  "name": "The City of Chicago v. Charles R. Holden et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Holden",
  "decision_date": "1901-12-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "213",
  "last_page": "214",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 Ill. 213"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "187 Ill. 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3229979
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/187/0021-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 Ill. 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3157003
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/176/0207-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 Ill. 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3224420
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/185/0526-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2367,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.573,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6741299022869612e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6964226485791256
    },
    "sha256": "b72828ebd8472a09d70d30649747f1ea51d8939ff99cf86c58faef14d3ff6b11",
    "simhash": "1:81c669a1a6e5c6f1",
    "word_count": 417
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:21.700173+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The City of Chicago v. Charles R. Holden et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Carter\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis writ of error was sued out by the city of Chicago to reverse a judgment of the county court sustaining objections to the confirmation of a special assessment levied to pay the cost of grading, paving and curbing Ogden avenue from Warren avenue to West Twelfth street, in said city, and dismissing the petition of the city.\nThis court reversed a judgment confirming said special assessment in Holden v. City of Chicago, 185 Ill. 526, and remanded the cause, stating in the opinion \u201cthat the ordinance in question contains the same defect which was held fatal in the Lusk case.\u201d (Lusk v. City of Chicago, 176 Ill. 207.) When the cause again came on for trial in the county court the city offered to prove that the term \u201cflat stones,\u201d as used in the' ordinance, had a definite, well known and established meaning in the city of Chicago with reference to street improvements, but the court refused to permit the proof to be made and the question was preserved by bill of exceptions for decision by this court. The object of the proof was to show that the term \u201cflat stones\u201d was not, in view of the alleged local meaning in which it is claimed to have been used in the ordinance, indefinite or uncertain as a matter of description. If proof of this character could have been produced by the petitioner it should have been received by the court, and the exclusion of it was error. Kuester v. City of Chicago, 187 Ill. 21, and cases there cited.\nBecause of the error mentioned, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Carter"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles M. Walker, Corporation Counsel, and William M. Pindell, for plaintiff in error.",
      "George W. Wilbur, for defendants in error,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The City of Chicago v. Charles R. Holden et al.\nOpinion filed December 18, 1901\nRehearing denied February 7, 1902.\nSpecial assessments \u2014 right of city to show that \u201cflat stones\u201d have a well defined local meaning. If an ordinance has been held defective in not describing the stones on which the curb is to be bedded otherwise than as \u201cflat stones,\u201d petitioner has a right, on second trial, to prove, if it can, that the term \u201cflat stones\u201d has such a well understood local meaning as not to be indefinite or uncertain.\nWrit of Error to the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Russell P. Goodwin, Judge, presiding.\nCharles M. Walker, Corporation Counsel, and William M. Pindell, for plaintiff in error.\nGeorge W. Wilbur, for defendants in error,"
  },
  "file_name": "0213-01",
  "first_page_order": 213,
  "last_page_order": 214
}