{
  "id": 2606320,
  "name": "Joshua L. Marsh et al. v. City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Marsh v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1871-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "115",
  "last_page": "115",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. 115"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. 239",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5239729
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/57/0239-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill. 86",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        8499920
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/60/0086-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 101,
    "char_count": 1222,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.58,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08266601643570726
    },
    "sha256": "cca4f9d2b5538161ce0d9d4857696427f023362d75d550eb5d5d1cc856b3f3e0",
    "simhash": "1:79125d38f2fdef36",
    "word_count": 202
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:06:21.204499+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joshua L. Marsh et al. v. City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nIn this case the application for judgment was made at the March term, 1871, of the superior court, by the city collector. He was not authorized to make such application after the adoption of the new constitution, Hills v. Chicago, 60 Ill. 86, and the judgment must for this reason be reversed.\nThe certificates of publication of notices are defective, in that they fail to state the date of-the last paper containing the same. Andrews v. City of Chicago, 57 Ill. 239.\nJudgment reversed and cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Spaffobd, McDaid & Wilson, for the appellants.",
      "Mr. M. F. Tuley, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joshua L. Marsh et al. v. City of Chicago.\n1. Special assessments\u2014application for judgment hy one unauthorized. Since the adoption of the new constitution the collector of the city of Chicago is not authorized to apply for judgment to enforce the collection of \u2022special assessments by the city.\n2. Same\u2014notice of application\u2014certificate of publication. When the certificate of the publication of notice of an application for judgment upon special assessments fails to state the date of the last paper containing the same, it is fatally defective.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook County.\nMessrs. Spaffobd, McDaid & Wilson, for the appellants.\nMr. M. F. Tuley, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0115-01",
  "first_page_order": 115,
  "last_page_order": 115
}