{
  "id": 5599554,
  "name": "The Maplewood Coal Company v. Charles A. Phillips",
  "name_abbreviation": "Maplewood Coal Co. v. Phillips",
  "decision_date": "1903-12-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "451",
  "last_page": "452",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 Ill. 451"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "109 Ill. App. 66",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2560508
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/109/0066-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill. 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 2800,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.616,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.370710586428907e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2744302853177927
    },
    "sha256": "13f59ffec66bb9824a96c7f72072eb546d7f52988441cc674414cb781cfe0569",
    "simhash": "1:94eefb3b2f208de4",
    "word_count": 479
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:32.167718+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Maplewood Coal Company v. Charles A. Phillips."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Hand\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn Bacon v. Lawrence, 26 Ill. 58, it was held both parties may appeal from the decision of a justice of the peace, and if only one party appeals he may dismiss his appeal against the wish of the other.\nIt is, however, contended by the appellant that section 31 of the Practice act, (3 Starr & Cur. Stat. p. 3016,) which reads as follows: \u201cWhen such plea or notice of set-off shall have been interposed, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to dismiss his suit without the consent of the defendant, or leave of the court,\u201d\u2014should govern this appeal, and prohibited the appellee from dismissing his appeal in the city court. We are of the opinion that section has no application to the dismissal of an appeal. The party appealing\" has the right to control his appeal, and may dismiss the same at any time before the case is finally disposed of, as a matter of right. If the appellant was not satisfied with the judgment of the justice he should have appealed therefrom, and having failed to appeal he will be deemed to have acquiesced therein and to now be content therewith.\nThe judgment of the Appellate Court will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Hand"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pinkney & McRoberts, for appellant.",
      "Chiperfield & Chiperfield, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Maplewood Coal Company v. Charles A. Phillips.\nOpinion filed December 16, 1903\nRehearing denied February 3, 1904.\n1. Practice\u2014party may dismiss his appeal from justice of peace without consent of the other party. Although both parties may appeal from the decision .of a justice of the peace, yet if only one appeals he may dismiss his appeal against the wish of the other, notwithstanding the latter filed a set-off on appeal.\n2. Same\u2014section 31 of Practice act does not apply to appeals. Section 31 of the Practice act, prohibiting the plaintiff from dismissing his suit without the consent of the defendant after the latter has pleaded a set-off, does not apply to the dismissal of an appeal.\nMaplewood Coal Co. v. Phillips, 109 Ill. App. 66, affirmed.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the Third District;\u2014heard in that court on appeal from the City Court of Canton; the Hon. P. W. Gallagher, Judge, presiding.\nThe appellee recovered a judgment before a justice of the peace of Fulton county for $75, the appellant not appearing.' The appellee prosecuted an appeal to the city court of Canton. The appellant appeared in that court and filed a set-off, whereupon the appellee moved the court to dismiss the appeal, which motion was allowed and the appeal was dismissed with a procedendo,. The appellant prosecuted an appeal to the Appellate Court for the Third District, where the judgment was affirmed, and a certificate of importance having been granted, a further appeal has been prosecuted to this court.\nPinkney & McRoberts, for appellant.\nChiperfield & Chiperfield, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0451-01",
  "first_page_order": 451,
  "last_page_order": 452
}