{
  "id": 4805703,
  "name": "The People ex rel. Paul Armstrong, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Chicago Railways Company et al. Defendants in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Armstrong v. Chicago Railways Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "140",
  "last_page": "141",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "270 Ill. 140"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 132,
    "char_count": 1740,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.732,
    "sha256": "d0a04dc69afcf742c67d59646851b787c4c4b73df3969916af1cd787189de1b6",
    "simhash": "1:23cbeaff84e8a670",
    "word_count": 297
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:05.994461+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People ex rel. Paul Armstrong, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Chicago Railways Company et al. Defendants in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Cooke\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe situation disclosed by the record in this case is the same as that in People v. Chicago Railways Co. (ante, p. 87,) with the exception that in this case the petition for mandamus was filed on the relation of Paul Armstrong, president of the village of River Forest, and it was sought to compel the Chicago Railways Company and the County Traction Company to establish and maintain a five-cent rate of fare for transportation between the western boundary line of the village of River Forest and the loop district in the city of Chicago. The same plea was filed to the petition and the same replication to the plea as in the case above mentioned. The court sustained the demurrer interposed by the Chicago Railways Company to the replication and rendered judgment in favor of the Chicago Railways Company and the city of Chicago. For the reasons given in People v. Chicago Railzvays Co. supra, the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the replication.\nThe judgment of the superior court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Cooke"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. E. Langworthy, and William R. Moss, (S. S. Gregory, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.",
      "John J. Herrick, and Horace Kent Tenney, for defendant in error the Chicago Railways Company.",
      "John W. Beckwith, Corporation Counsel, and Chas. M. Haet, for defendant in error the city of Chicago. '"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People ex rel. Paul Armstrong, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Chicago Railways Company et al. Defendants in Error.\nOpinion filed October 27, 1915\nRehearing denied Dec. 9, 1915.\nThis case is controlled by the decision in People v. Chicago Railways Co. (ante, p. 87.)\nWrit oe Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Foell, Judge, presiding.\nB. E. Langworthy, and William R. Moss, (S. S. Gregory, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.\nJohn J. Herrick, and Horace Kent Tenney, for defendant in error the Chicago Railways Company.\nJohn W. Beckwith, Corporation Counsel, and Chas. M. Haet, for defendant in error the city of Chicago. '"
  },
  "file_name": "0140-01",
  "first_page_order": 140,
  "last_page_order": 141
}