{
  "id": 2731685,
  "name": "The Spirella Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. William F. Pagels, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Spirella Co. v. Pagels",
  "decision_date": "1911-06-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,677",
  "first_page": "577",
  "last_page": "578",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "162 Ill. App. 577"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "203 U. S. 507",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        8294115
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/203/0507-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 Fed. Rep. 223",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "case_ids": [
        1914973
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f/161/0223-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 Fed. Rep. 288",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "case_ids": [
        5731407
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f/145/0288-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 Ill. App. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2475146
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/133/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 Ill. App. 557",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5288267
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/93/0557-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 193,
    "char_count": 2681,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08391126278018525
    },
    "sha256": "4716b661c194d919adace8c30990cf34439ed3f0dee41dfb62faba989b778764",
    "simhash": "1:96e3c6ae3eb6e4fd",
    "word_count": 451
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:35.474007+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Spirella Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. William F. Pagels, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe plaintiff in error, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought this action against the defendant in error, hereinafter called defendant, on an account stated for $45.95. The defendant by affidavit, under the rules of the Municipal Court, denied any account stated and denied that he had purchased any goods from the plaintiff; also defended on the ground the plaintiff was a foreign corporation doing business in this State without qualifying as provided under \u201cAn Act to regulate the admission of foreign corporations for profit to do business in the State of Illinois,\u201d in force July 1, 1905.\nThe cause was tried by the court without a jury. The court required the parties to first try the issues that the plaintiff was a foreign corporation doing business in this State without qualifying under the said statute. On these issues the court found for the defendant and thereupon held \u201cthat the evidence offered by the plaintiff as to the merits of the case was incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial;\u201d refused to hear the same and entered judgment for the defendant.\nThere was no evidence of any nature tending to show that the plaintiff had not qualified under the said statute. Moreover, we do not think the evidence showed that the plaintiff was doing business in this State in violation of the said Act. Havens & Geddes Co. v. Diamond, 93 Ill. App. 557; Black-Clawson Co. v. Carlyle Paper Co., 133 Ill. App. 61; Kirven v. V.-C. Chemical Co., 145 Fed. Rep. 288; Atlas Engine Works v. Parkinson, 161 Fed. Rep. 223; Rearick v. Pennsylvania, 203 U. S. 507, and the many authorities cited in each of said cases.\nThe court was in error in holding that under the evidence the plaintiff had no right to maintain its action, and as the court improperly refused to hear the case on its merits, it must be remanded.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winkler, Baker & Holder, for plaintiff in error; G. Raymond Collins, of counsel.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Spirella Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. William F. Pagels, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 15,677.\nForeign corporations\u2014when defense of doing business contrary to statute not sustained. Held, that the trial court erred in refusing to hear this cause upon the merits, that there was no evidence showing that the plaintiff corporation had not complied with the statute and that it was doing business in this state in violation of the statute.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Fry, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1909.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed June 29, 1911.\nWinkler, Baker & Holder, for plaintiff in error; G. Raymond Collins, of counsel.\nNo appearance for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0577-01",
  "first_page_order": 597,
  "last_page_order": 598
}