{
  "id": 2609519,
  "name": "Charles Follansbee v. The City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Follansbee v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1871-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "288",
  "last_page": "289",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. 288"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 114,
    "char_count": 1756,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5933219852885944e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6824380494770158
    },
    "sha256": "6a2fc47f78ea604b18a802b71580769d2fbe6ff0b6df2c7812fec77c982cd163",
    "simhash": "1:b5d0747bf03a0f57",
    "word_count": 292
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:06:21.204499+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Follansbee v. The City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThis is an appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Cook County, rendered upon the application of the collector of the city of Chicago, upon a special assessment warrant for the opening of a street sixty-six feet wide, from West Madison Street to West Twelfth Street, properly described in the proceedings. Under an objection to the recovery of the judgment, made on behalf of appellant to that effect, evidence was introduced showing that the same street had been opened to the width of sixty feet, with a ditch on both sides, for the period of three years before these proceedings.\nThis evidence was given by an unimpeached witness, and stands upon the record un'contradicted. Prima facie, it constituted a defense. The collector was unauthorized to apply for judgment.\nThe judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Edward Roby, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. M. F. Tuley, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Follansbee v. The City of Chicago.\n1. Special assessments in Chicago\u2014defense to the application for judgment. Upon the application of the city collector of Chicago for judgment upon a special assessment warrant for the opening of a certain street, sixty-six feet wide, under an objection to the recovery of the judgment, evidence was introduced showing that the same street had been opened to the width of sixty feet, with a ditch on both sides, for the period of three years before the proceedings : Held, that this constituted, prima, facie, a defense.\n2. Same\u2014power of the collector to apply for judgment. And besides, the collector\u2019s authority to apply for the judgment had been abrogated by the constitution of 1870.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge presiding.\nMr. Edward Roby, for the appellant.\nMr. M. F. Tuley, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0288-01",
  "first_page_order": 288,
  "last_page_order": 289
}