{
  "id": 4762653,
  "name": "Frank M. Williams et al. Plaintiffs in Error, vs. Ann Eliza Huey et al. Defendants in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Huey",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "275",
  "last_page": "276",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "263 Ill. 275"
    }
  ],
  "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": 160,
    "char_count": 2084,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.76,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.932622909066855e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9651095488578678
    },
    "sha256": "13e3735f57dd98fe6bb5f650cfbc26065bcbee0c23e973cd4e6b2bb41a35c175",
    "simhash": "1:d730dbcacce9d03c",
    "word_count": 359
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:34:37.377440+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank M. Williams et al. Plaintiffs in Error, vs. Ann Eliza Huey et al. Defendants in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chiee Justice Cooke\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn March 27, 1912, Frank M. Williams, individually and as guardian of Claude Raymond Williams, and Anna Huey Williams, filed their bill for partition in the circuit court of Alexander county. A guardian ad litem was appointed for certain infant defendants, and the \u2022 guardian ad litem demurred to the bill. The demurrer was sustained, and the complainants having elected to stand by their bill, a decree was entered \u201cthat the said defendants have and recover of and from the complainant herein their costs in this behalf expended, and that in default of payment execution issue therefor; to which judgment the complainants except and pray an appeal, * * * and this cause is continued generally.\u201d This was the only order or decree entered. It did not dismiss the bill or otherwise finally dispose of the cause, but, on the contrary, the cause was continued. This writ of error has been sued out to review this decree.\nAn order sustaining a demurrer, although it adjudges costs, is not a final decree. As the statute only authorizes final judgments or decrees to be reviewed by appeal or writ of error this court has no jurisdiction of the cause and will dismiss the writ of error of its own motion. Chicago Portrait Co. v. Crayon Co. 217 Ill. 200; County of Franklin v. Blake, 257 id. 354.\nThe writ of error is dismissed.\nWHf dismissed_",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chiee Justice Cooke"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. A. Dempsey, and T. D. Hines, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "David S. Lansden, guardian ad litem, for defendants in error. ,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank M. Williams et al. Plaintiffs in Error, vs. Ann Eliza Huey et al. Defendants in Error.\nOpinion filed April 23, 1914.\nAppeals and errors\u2014an order sustaining a demurrer is not a final, appealable order. An order sustaining a demurrer to a bill is not a final, appealable order even though it adjudges costs, and the Supreme Court, having jurisdiction to review final orders, only, will dismiss, of its own motion, a writ of error sued out to reverse the order.\nWrit oE Error to the Circuit Court of Alexander county; the Hon. William N. ButlEr, Judge, presiding.\nM. A. Dempsey, and T. D. Hines, for plaintiffs in error.\nDavid S. Lansden, guardian ad litem, for defendants in error. ,"
  },
  "file_name": "0275-01",
  "first_page_order": 275,
  "last_page_order": 276
}