{
  "id": 817833,
  "name": "Bernard Southeim et al. v. The City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Southeim v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1870-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "429",
  "last_page": "430",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "56 Ill. 429"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 133,
    "char_count": 2134,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.2575678455003104e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2695101142962389
    },
    "sha256": "40b6d1e2120193425c1c89a23d7d585740e5b95f8a86b6755d7654087da0a6d4",
    "simhash": "1:25d96f61772f5ebc",
    "word_count": 338
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:24:24.423395+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Bernard Southeim et al. v. The City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McAllister\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis is an appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Chicago, for a special assessment for the extension or opening of Dearborn street, in the city of Chicago.\nThe appellants appeared in court at the time specified in the collector\u2019s notice of application, and filed objections, in writing, to the recovery of the judgment, pursuant to statute, among which was, \u201c that the commissioners, in making said assessment, knowingly and willfully assessed objector\u2019s real estate at more than its proportion of benefits to be conferred by said improvement.\u201d\n\u201c And because commissioners assessed certain real estate benefited, for an amount grossly and very much less than it was benefited, and, in so doing, increased the benefits assessed against objector\u2019s real estate.\u201d\nUpon the hearing, appellants offered evidence tending to sustain their objections, and to prove fraud, on the part of the commissioners, in making the assessment. The court excluded the evidence. Appellants excepted, and assign this ruling for error.\nWe have determined in favor of the admissibility of this defense in the preceding case of Creote et al. v. City of Chicago.\nThe judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McAllister"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Barker & Tuley, for the appellants.",
      "Mr. S. A. Iryhst, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bernard Southeim et al. v. The City of Chicago.\nSpecial assessment in Chicago \u2014 what defenses availing. Upon an application for a judgment upon a special assessment in the city of Chicago, it is admissible to prove as a defense thereto, \u201c that the commissioners, in making said assessment, knowingly and willfully assessed objector\u2019s real estate at more than its proportion of benefits to be conferred by said improvement; \u201d and that the \u201c commissioners assessed certain real estate benefited, for an amount grossly and very much less than it was benefited, and, in so doing, increased the benefits assessed against objector\u2019s real estate.\u201d\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.\nThe opinion states the case.\nMessrs. Barker & Tuley, for the appellants.\nMr. S. A. Iryhst, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0429-01",
  "first_page_order": 431,
  "last_page_order": 432
}