{
  "id": 5309390,
  "name": "Robert Leitch et al. v. John Wentworth et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Leitch v. Wentworth",
  "decision_date": "1873-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "146",
  "last_page": "147",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "71 Ill. 146"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2273,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.578,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.795204638802265e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5326092370636281
    },
    "sha256": "c730076aafc5e311b65f9541486e65fea36c93b61de70b354be20a630ef67bcb",
    "simhash": "1:0bff32c520b08850",
    "word_count": 388
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:56:49.062477+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robert Leitch et al. v. John Wentworth et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThis was a bill in chancery, in the Cook\ncircuit court, to restrain the collection of a tax alleged to have been illegally assessed for the purpose, in part, of paying a judgment alleged to have been fraudulently obtained against the town of Lyons. The bill was filed by tax-payers of that town, and to which appellants here, who were to be the recipients of these taxes, when collected, were made defendants.\nOn the hearing, on complainants\u2019 motion, they were dismissed out of the case, and the injunction made perpetual against the other defendants, officers of the town of Lyons, and the count}' treasurer.\nFrom this decree the party to whom these taxes, or a large portion of them, were to go, in the event of their collection, take this appeal, and raise various questions.\nWe think, on examination of the record, that the court did not err in making the injunction perpetual as against the town officers. We are of opinion, also, that these appellants were not necessary parties in the injunction. They had no vested interest in the tax levied, nor had they filed a cross-bill. Their remedy is by mandamus, if they have any. Their co-defendants, who are enjoined, do not complain.\nUpon the point of jurisdiction, the allegation of fraud in levying the tax complained of, for an unauthorized purpose, was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction.\nThe decree must be affirmed.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. J. H. Knowlton, for the appellants.",
      "Messrs. Scoville, Corwin & Bailey, for the appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert Leitch et al. v. John Wentworth et al.\n1. Ikjunction\u2014of the collection of taxes far fraudulent purposes. If a bill to restrain town officers from the collection of a tax alleges fraud in the levy of the taxes to pay a judgment fraudulently recovered against the town, this will give the court jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed.\n3. Parties defendant to hill to enjoin tax. On bill to restrain town officers from the collection of taxes fraudulently levied to pay an unauthorized judgment, the parties to whom the taxes are to go, if collected, are not necessary parties, and it is not error to dismiss them from the case, where they have not filed a cross-bill.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. William W. Harwell, Judge, presiding.\nMr. J. H. Knowlton, for the appellants.\nMessrs. Scoville, Corwin & Bailey, for the appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0146-01",
  "first_page_order": 146,
  "last_page_order": 147
}