{
  "id": 4718893,
  "name": "The County of Franklin, Appellant, vs. William B. Blake et al. Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "County of Franklin v. Blake",
  "decision_date": "1913-02-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "354",
  "last_page": "355",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "257 Ill. 354"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "217 Ill. 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3356400
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/217/0200-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 2128,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.752,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4094333126308854e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6466720646647739
    },
    "sha256": "e311f228584c5b1a60b9c50c84e2cd2e1475277882c8c4683803244275177123",
    "simhash": "1:bfb671e06c24cb5c",
    "word_count": 357
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:09:39.937894+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The County of Franklin, Appellant, vs. William B. Blake et al. Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Cooke\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe State\u2019s attorney filed an information in behalf of the county in the circuit court of Franklin county, in which he claimed that certain lands therein described had es-cheated to the county. The court sustained a demurrer to the information, but neither adjudged that the county, take nothing by the writ nor that the defendants go hence without day, and the order of the court contained no words of equivalent meaning. The recital in the record is as follows: \u201cThe court having heretofore heard the argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, the defendants\u2019 demurrer to the petition of plaintiff filed herein is by the court sustained; to the sustaining of which demurrer the petitioner then and there excepts and elects to stand by its petition. And now, to-wit, on the same day, comes the petitioner, by its said attorneys, and prays an appeal to the Supreme Court,\u201d etc. From this order the State\u2019s attorney, on behalf of Franklin county, has perfected this appeal.\nThere was no disposition of the rights of the parties or of the suit. An order sustaining a demurrer is not a final judgment, and as the statute only authorizes appeals from final judgments this court has no jurisdiction of the cause and should dismiss the appeal of its own motion. Chicago Portrait Co. v. Crayon Co. 217 Ill. 200.\nThe appeal is dismissed.\nAppd dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Cooke"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. A. Hickman, State\u2019s Attorney, (Spiller & Miller, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Moses PulvErman, and Hart & Williams, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The County of Franklin, Appellant, vs. William B. Blake et al. Appellees.\nOpinion filed February 20, 1913.\nAppeals and errors\u2014order sustaining demurrer is not a final order. An order sustaining a demurrer to an information but containing no words equivalent to a judgment that the petitioner take nothing by the writ or that the defendants go hence without day is not a final order and no appeal lies therefrom, as the statute limits the right of appeal to final judgments, only.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Franklin county; the Hon. Jacob R. Creighton, Judge, presiding.\nG. A. Hickman, State\u2019s Attorney, (Spiller & Miller, of counsel,) for appellant.\nMoses PulvErman, and Hart & Williams, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0354-01",
  "first_page_order": 354,
  "last_page_order": 355
}