{
  "id": 2596798,
  "name": "E. Smith v. Ivan Schey et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Schey",
  "decision_date": "1902-03-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "223",
  "last_page": "224",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "101 Ill. App. 223"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "185 Ill. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3223711
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/185/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 Ill. 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5550224
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/181/0448-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2445,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.587,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0825351207734505
    },
    "sha256": "25bee05f89867db6158e20c1c1959d77a9074ed9842a98f9d2bf95cf8c084e4e",
    "simhash": "1:189298f3c41debb4",
    "word_count": 408
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:26.777914+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. Smith v. Ivan Schey et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Me. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe provisions of the act of July 1, 1895, entitled, \u201cAn act to regulate the assignment of notes secured by chattel mortgages,\u201d applies only to chattel mortgages the notes secured by which have been assigned, and is not applicable to mortgages like the one in question, wherein the secured notes are held by the mortgagee. The chattel mortgage under consideration is therefore not void. Hogan v. Akin, 181 Ill. 448; Sellers v. Thomas, 185 Ill. 384.\nThe decree of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to enter a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill.\nReversed and remanded, with directions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Me. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William 8. Newburger, attorney for appellant.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. Smith v. Ivan Schey et al.\n1. Chattel Mortgages\u2014Notes Secured by\u2014Application of the Act of 1895.\u2014The provisions of the act of July 1,1895, entitled \u201cAn act to regulate the assignment of notes secured by chattel mortgages and to regulate the sale of property under the power of sale contained in chattel mortgages \u201d (Laws, 1895, p. 260), applies only to chattel mortgages the notes secured by which have been assigned, and not to mortgages the notes secured by which are held by the mortgagee.\nForeclosure, of a chattel mortgage in chancery. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1901.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed March 18, 1902.\nJune 16, 1896, appellees executed seven promissory notes, for the total sum of $265, to E. Smith; the same date appellees executed a chattel mortgage upon all their household effects to secure these notes. December 23, 1896, Smith filed a bill in the Circuit Court, asking that this mortgage be foreclosed; alleging, among other things, that most of the indebtedness had become due and had not been paid. Appellees filed an answer to the bill, alleging, among other things, that said notes did not contain the words, \u201c This note is secured by chattel mortgage.\" The cause was referred to a master, where evidence was introduced by complainant and defendants. The master found for the complainant. The cause then came on for hearing before the chancellor, who, after hearing the evidence, found for the defendants, for the reason that the notes did not contain the words, \u201c This note is secured by chattel mortgage.\u201d\nWilliam 8. Newburger, attorney for appellant.\nNo appearance for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0223-01",
  "first_page_order": 249,
  "last_page_order": 250
}