{
  "id": 2727344,
  "name": "Effie Perkins, Defendant in Error, v. Thomas M. Hunter et al., Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Perkins v. Hunter",
  "decision_date": "1911-05-04",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,629",
  "first_page": "404",
  "last_page": "406",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "161 Ill. App. 404"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 3345,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "sha256": "0cf6113e61af26709966663f9ad292e96834f19d7dd5394c40542968e8a6c11a",
    "simhash": "1:104d0a77d23fa84c",
    "word_count": 602
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:57:31.944651+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Effie Perkins, Defendant in Error, v. Thomas M. Hunter et al., Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe order of the Municipal Court which it is sought to reverse by this writ of error was not a final one in any view of it which may be taken. Whether the Municipal Court had or had not the power to entertain the \u201ctrial of the right of property\u201d by a defendant to a suit in which the property was attached, it is not necessary to decide, and we do not do so. The statement of claim specified a large quantity of property besides four trunks and their contents, all which, by the order of the court which this writ of error seeks to reverse, is found to be \u201cexempt from attachment and garnishment.\u201d But the only order is that the Bailiff Hunter surrender the four trunks \u201cheld by him on the attachment writ.\u201d The bailiff had not seized under the attachment anything but the trunks and contents, but had served the writ of attachment so far as the other goods were concerned by summoning as garnishee the Warehouse Company which held them in storage.\nThe original statement of claim shows the suit to be brought as a \u201ctrial of the right of propertyunder section 48a of the Municipal Court Act added by amendment in 1907 to the original Act, although in answer to a rule oh the plaintiff to file a more specific statement of claim she declared that she was the owner of the property described in the original statement of claim, \u201cwhich has been levied on by Thomas M. Hunter, Bailiff of the Municipal Court of Chicago as in said original claim stated,\u201d and that she claimed \u201cthe same as belonging to'her and as exempt under the exemption laws of the State of Illinois in such case made and provided.\u201d\nWhether a right existed in the defendant in error to bring this suit in this way because she claimed an exemption is, as we have said, immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the goods named were in reality exempt from attachment.\nThe order is not a final one. The finding embraces all the property claimed by Mrs. Perkins, and is to the effect that they are all \u201cexempt from attachment and garnishment.\u201d It does not, however, adjudge \u201cthe right of property\u201d to any one, and the order is only an order on an officer of the court to surrender that portion of the property which was claimed which had been actually in his possession under the attachment writ. The attachment had then been quashed by an order of the Municipal Court, and the judgment quashing it has now been affirmed by this court.\nThere is no \u201cfinal order or judgment\u201d of the Municipal Court herein for our review, and the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction to entertain it, which was heretofore reserved to the hearing, is allowed and the writ dismissed.\nWrit of error dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bernard J. Brown, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Charles W. Taylor and F. S. Loomis, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Effie Perkins, Defendant in Error, v. Thomas M. Hunter et al., Plaintiffs in Error.\nGen. No. 15,629.\nAppeals and errors\u2014what order not final and appealable. In a proceeding to try the right of property, an order which does not adjudge \u201cthe right of property\u201d to any one, is not final and therefore not appealable.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Arnold Heap, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1909.\nWrit dismissed.\nOpinion filed May 4, 1911.\nBernard J. Brown, for plaintiffs in error.\nCharles W. Taylor and F. S. Loomis, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0404-01",
  "first_page_order": 446,
  "last_page_order": 448
}