{
  "id": 5340610,
  "name": "M. H. Elliott and Nelson A. Pearson, Trading as Elliott & Pearson, Defendants in Error, v. Mansel B. Greene, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Elliott v. Greene",
  "decision_date": "1912-10-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,301",
  "first_page": "213",
  "last_page": "214",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "172 Ill. App. 213"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 128,
    "char_count": 1566,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4371488453573934
    },
    "sha256": "e435622f4e639c9d991a4a8aba83b0c864d5383ef1f0772f8d1d7a1c90d8deef",
    "simhash": "1:7b659d7b9bcfd8cb",
    "word_count": 273
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:03:04.791769+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. H. Elliott and Nelson A. Pearson, Trading as Elliott & Pearson, Defendants in Error, v. Mansel B. Greene, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe only ground urged for reversal is that this being a case of the fourth class it was imperative on the court to set it down for trial, and that no order of record to that effect appears.\nThe record shows that defendant entered his appearance December 6th, the return day of the summons, and that judgment was entered on December 17th. The judgment order recites that the cause came up in the regular course for trial, and that defendant was absent and not represented \u2014 presumably meaning at the trial. There is nothing to show that the court did not proceed regularly, and, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, the presumption is that it did, and that it set the cause for trial at the time of defendant\u2019s appearance, as it might do under Section 45 of the Municipal Court Act.\nJudgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Clair D. Vallette, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. H. Elliott and Nelson A. Pearson, Trading as Elliott & Pearson, Defendants in Error, v. Mansel B. Greene, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,301.\nAppeal and error \u2014 presumption as to court\u2019s action. In the absence of a contrary showing it will be presumed on appeal that the lower court proceeded regularly and set the cause for trial at the time of the defendant\u2019s appearance as authorized by Municipal Court Act, \u00a7 45.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph Z. Uhlir, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 1, 1912.\nClair D. Vallette, for plaintiff in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0213-01",
  "first_page_order": 231,
  "last_page_order": 232
}
