{
  "id": 5279378,
  "name": "Azel Dorathy v. The City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dorathy v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1869-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "79",
  "last_page": "80",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 Ill. 79"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1940,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1762288137047171e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5875846429656709
    },
    "sha256": "4b7db9342e902e8ce82bd58c1f2eb490d9a511fadae748d8f684bfa556ba8e98",
    "simhash": "1:30d861b87aaf05fc",
    "word_count": 329
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:19.479696+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Azel Dorathy v. The City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lawrence\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis is a special assessment for grading, paving and curbing a parj; of Franklin street, in the city of Chicago. On the hearing, the defendant proved that the curbing had been built some years previously, and was adopted by the city in making this improvement, no new curbing having been made. The court at first held this fatal to the assessment, but afterwards excluded this evidence on the ground that no objection had been filed under which it was admissible, and overruled a motion for leave to file an additional objection to the assessment.\nWe have, at the present term, affirmed a considerable number of judgments in these special assessment cases, in nearly \u2022 all of which the objections were of so trivial a character that it would seem counsel could have brought them here only for delay. Here is a case, however, where the objection goes to the substance. Ho argument in regard to it is necessary. The city is seeking to collect an assessment for work it never performed, and there were several of the objections filed under which the evidence was admissible.\nJudgment reversed.\nBushnell v. City of Chicago.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Chicago.\nPer Curiam: : This case presents the same question as that decided in Dorathy v. City of Chicago, ante, and the judgment must be reversed.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lawrence"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Edward Roby, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. S. A. Irvin, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Azel Dorathy v. The City of Chicago.\nSpecial assessment\u2014\u00bffor work not done. Upon a special assessment for grading, paving and curbing a street, it appeared that the curbing had been done some years previously, and was adopted by the city in making this improvement, no new curbing having been made: Held,, the city could not collect an assessment for work it never performed.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.\nThe opinion states the case.\nMr. Edward Roby, for the appellant.\nMr. S. A. Irvin, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0079-01",
  "first_page_order": 83,
  "last_page_order": 84
}