{
  "id": 3353743,
  "name": "W. C. Noyes v. The City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Noyes v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1905-10-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "45",
  "last_page": "45",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "218 Ill. 45"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 127,
    "char_count": 1507,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.726,
    "sha256": "a0d89aad5b1324d380c9cf24f3d2e7878447cccde3e29adbc0c4681d4023afcd",
    "simhash": "1:d68cbb02ea7c7040",
    "word_count": 246
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:38:56.267006+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. C. Noyes v. The City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThis is an appeal from the judgment of the county court of Cook county confirming an assessment in a supplemental proceeding levied to meet a deficiency caused by the contract price of paving Seventy-fourth street from Yates avenue to Bond avenue being in excess of the amount confirmed in the original proceeding.\nThe original ordinance provided that the estimated cost of the improvement should be divided into five installments.\nThe ordinance upon which the supplemental proceedings were based provided that the supplemental or additional assessment should be payable in one payment. The sole question in this case raised by counsel for appellant is, that the ordinance in the supplemental assessment is invalid because\nit did not divide the assessment into five installments, in the same manner as the original assessment was divided. This question has been settled adversely to appellant\u2019s contention in the case of Goodrich v. City of Chicago, (ante, p. 18,) and for the reason set forth in that opinion the judgment of the county court of Cook county will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. W. Burns, and Wm. Garnett, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Robert Redfield, and Frank Johnston, Jr., (Edgar. B. Tolman, Corporation Counsel, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. C. Noyes v. The City of Chicago.\nOpinion filed October 24, 1905.\nThis case is controlled by the decision in Goodrich v. City of Chicago, (ante, p. 18.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. T. N. Cofer, Judge, presiding.\nR. W. Burns, and Wm. Garnett, Jr., for appellant.\nRobert Redfield, and Frank Johnston, Jr., (Edgar. B. Tolman, Corporation Counsel, of counsel,) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0045-01",
  "first_page_order": 45,
  "last_page_order": 45
}