{
  "id": 2581029,
  "name": "Mrs. J. W. Hutchinson et al. v. Ernest A. Sine et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hutchinson v. Sine",
  "decision_date": "1903-01-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "638",
  "last_page": "639",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "105 Ill. App. 638"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 149",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        869037
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/62/0149-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 Ill. 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3161231
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/175/0019-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 215,
    "char_count": 2853,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.43909677274114e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34227787025421175
    },
    "sha256": "d2614da46d6bad18bbcb861a48293405a0b72e893c31997f40c54d59320c7b0a",
    "simhash": "1:458a1c527d69c472",
    "word_count": 486
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:14:11.336350+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mrs. J. W. Hutchinson et al. v. Ernest A. Sine et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nJudgment was entered in this case, reciting as follows : \u201c Therefore it is considered by the court that the plaintiffs do have and recover of and from the defendants, Mrs. J. W. Hutchinson, S. S. Hutchinson and W. S. Hemby, his said damages of $1,184.17 in form as aforesaid by the jury assessed, together with his costs and charges in this behalf expended, and have execution therefor.\u201d It appears that while the suit as begun included the three defendants named against whom the judgment was rendered, only two of them were served with summons, and the third defendant, W. S. Hemby,who was not served, never entered his appearance. He does not appeal, and the attention of the trial court does not seem to have been called to the erroneous entry of judgment against one not brought under its jurisdiction. It was probably an oversight or mistake by the clerk in writing up the judgment. Nevertheless the law in this state is apparently settled, that in such case the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded generally. In Knights of Honor v. Goldberger, 175 Ill. 19, the trial court had entered judgment against two defendants, one of whom was not served and had entered no appearance. The Appellate Court reversed the cause because of the same error, but inasmuch as the evidence supported the verdict against the party which had been properly brought in by summons, the Circuit Court was directed to enter judgment on the verdict against such defendant.\nThe Supreme Court says: \u201c The judgment was a unit as to both defendants, and should have been reversed as to both and remanded generally.\u201d We are precluded, therefore, from endeavoring to correct the mistake in order to give effect to the judgment in the case at bar against the parties properly served. There seems to be no way of avoiding a new trial for all parties.\nThe judgment bad as to one is bad as to all. See, Grace v. Casey-Grimshaw Marble Co., 62 Ill. App. 149, and cases cited; also cases cited in Knights of Honor v. Goldberger, supra. The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Freeman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. O. Garmire and Grant Newell, attorneys for appellees.",
      "William Gibson and F. W. Becker, attorneys for appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mrs. J. W. Hutchinson et al. v. Ernest A. Sine et al.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Where the Judgment Has Been Erroneously Entered.\u2014Where the clerk of the trial court in writing up the judgment makes an erroneous entry of judgment against one not brought under its jurisdiction, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded generally.\nAssumpsit.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridqe Haneoy, Judge presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1901.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 16, 1903.\nRehearing denied February 3, 1903.\nC. O. Garmire and Grant Newell, attorneys for appellees.\nWilliam Gibson and F. W. Becker, attorneys for appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0638-01",
  "first_page_order": 660,
  "last_page_order": 661
}