{
  "id": 2606842,
  "name": "Thomas H. Brown et al. v. The City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1871-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "289",
  "last_page": "290",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. 289"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5239961
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/57/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill. 86",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        8499920
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/60/0086-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 2024,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.604,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08267489726235004
    },
    "sha256": "cead868914c5178100e89a944a056b6cfb2306704db972855781161d6eba459b",
    "simhash": "1:d9440dff807c619e",
    "word_count": 346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:06:21.204499+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas H. Brown et al. v. The City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThese cases all arise upon one warrant, and out of the same proceedings. If we were to stop to discuss all the questions urged in these and the other assessment cases before us, the longest mortal life would not suffice to complete the task.\nTwo points are made, each of which is fatal to the judgment :\n1st. That the collector was not authorized to apply for the judgment. Hills v. Chicago, 60 Ill. 86.\n2d. That the certificate of publication of the notice of the meeting of commissioners to make the assessment, and of publication of notice of application for confirmation (Rue v. The City of Chicago, 57 Ill. 435, where the certificates were in the same form,) not showing the date of the last paper containing the same, as required by the statute.\nJudgments reversed and the causes remanded.\nJudgments reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas H. Brown et al. v. The City of Chicago.\n1. Special assessments in Chicago\u2014who may apply for judgment. The authority of the city collector of Chicago to apply for judgment for the sale of real estate, for the payment of unpaid special assessments, was abrogated by the constitution of 1870.\n2. Same\u2014certificate of publication. The certificate of publication of the commissioners\u2019 notice of their meeting to make a special assessment in the city of Chicago, and of the notice of application for confirmation of the assessment, is fatally defective if it omit to state the dates of the first and last papers containing such notices, or language equivalent thereto.\nAppeals from the Superior Court of Cook County.\nThese cases arise upon the application of the city collector of Chicago for judgments upon a special assessment warrant. The court below granted orders for the sale of the real estate against which the assessment was made, for its payment. The objectors bring the record to this court.\nThis case and the cases of the following named appellants against the city of Chicago are all considered in the same opinion : Adams & Parker, Peter Schuttler et al., and Francis S. How et al."
  },
  "file_name": "0289-01",
  "first_page_order": 289,
  "last_page_order": 290
}