{
  "id": 2703032,
  "name": "John Mohler et al. v. Joseph Wiltberger",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mohler v. Wiltberger",
  "decision_date": "1874-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "163",
  "last_page": "164",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 Ill. 163"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill. 294",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2452555
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/29/0294-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2987,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.245111972132396e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9148544953779159
    },
    "sha256": "99d6d82e5b95ae86831093a622bb43a8c014c0b825c9008b8d302201d64b61a0",
    "simhash": "1:81d2e5384393c480",
    "word_count": 534
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:15:58.689091+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Mohler et al. v. Joseph Wiltberger."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Craig\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe only question presented by this record is, whether a complainant may, before a hearing, dismiss his bill without prejudice.\nWe understand the practice to be well settled that the complainant; at any time prior to a decree, has the right, unless a cross-bill has been filed, to control the fortunes of his own bill, and dismiss it, as a matter of course.\nAfter a decree has been rendered, then the complainant cannot dismiss his bill, except by consent, for the reason that after decree others aside from the complainant have a fixed and definite interest in the subject matter in litigation in the cause, and hence have a right to be consulted before their rights shall be impaired by a dismissal of the bill.\nThe rule is well and clearly stated in Daniells\u2019 Chancery Practice, vol. 2, page 356, as follows: \u201cA plaintiff may move to dismiss his own bill, with costs, as a matter of course, at any time before the decree; it is said that after witnesses have been examined it is not to be prayed, except it be upon special cause, but this does not appear to be the present rule of practice. After a decree, however, the court will not suffer a plaintiff to dismiss his own bill, unless upon consent, for all parties are interested in a decree, and any party may take such steps as he may be advised to have the effect of it.\u201d\nIt is, however, insisted that a decree had been rendered in this cause, and the motion of the complainant came too late.\nIt appears from the record before us that in 1866 a final decree was rendered in the cause, from which one of the defendants sued out a writ of error, and at the September term, 1870, of this court, the decree which had been rendered was reversed, and the cause remanded.\nThe effect of the judgment of this court left the cause pending in the court below for trial, precisely as if no decree had ever been rendered. This rule was announced in the case of Chickering v. Failes, 29 Ill. 294. The cause was governed by the same rule, so far as complainant\u2019s right to dismiss was concerned, as if no decree had ever been rendered therein. The Superior Court so treated it, and in this we perceive no error.\nThe decree of the Superior Court will be affirmed.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Craig"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Harding, McCoy & Pratt, and Mr. T. C. Whiteside, for the appellants.",
      "Messrs. Ayer & Kales, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Mohler et al. v. Joseph Wiltberger.\n1. Chancery practice \u2014 complainant\u2019s right to dismiss hill. A complainant has the right, at any time before the decree is rendered, to dismiss his bill, unless a cross-bill has been filed. After decree he cannot, except upon consent.\n3. Same\u2014right to dismiss after decree reversed. The effect of a reversal of a decree being to leave the cause pending for hearing precisely as if no decree had been rendered, the complainant may dismiss his bill after such reversal.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. S. M. Moobe, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Harding, McCoy & Pratt, and Mr. T. C. Whiteside, for the appellants.\nMessrs. Ayer & Kales, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0163-01",
  "first_page_order": 161,
  "last_page_order": 162
}