{
  "id": 8499394,
  "name": "Reed Manufacturing Company, Appellee, v. John M. Foley, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Reed Manufacturing Co. v. Foley",
  "decision_date": "1913-03-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,860",
  "first_page": "72",
  "last_page": "75",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "178 Ill. App. 72"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "130 Ill. App. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2528071
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/130/0205-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5260720
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/84/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 Ill. 567",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5485573
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/145/0567-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. 507",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        823982
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/78/0507-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 6286,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20506388596400793
    },
    "sha256": "e8b1d1d4399c275db9bd29820b920a789b1c78b672e6b3f68349a3ffaebd5a78",
    "simhash": "1:9a4f6ea170a49dbd",
    "word_count": 1063
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:56:36.464744+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Reed Manufacturing Company, Appellee, v. John M. Foley, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellee, plaintiff below, commenced an action of the first class in the Municipal Court of Chicago against appellant, defendant below, to recover the value of certain merchandise which it claimed had been sold and delivered to defendant at the latter\u2019s request. Following rule 15 of said court, plaintiff, in lieu of a declaration, filed a statement of claim, supported by affidavit, claiming that there was due it from defendant the sum of $1,189.51. The defendant filed a verified plea in which he alleged, in substance, that plaintiff was a foreign corporation for profit and had not complied with the provisions of the statutes of this state regulating the admission of such corporations to do business in this state, and that therefore plaintiff could not maintain the action. Subsequently, on motion of the defendant, the court granted him leave to file an \u201camended affidavit of merits\u201d instcmter, and he filed an \u201camended plea,\u201d verified by affidavit, setting forth in different language substantially the same defense as in the former plea, namely, that plaintiff was a foreign corporation, etc., and could not maintain its action.\nIt appears from the bill of exceptions that when the cause was called for trial before the court without a jury, the attorneys for both parties stated that they were ready for trial; that plaintiff\u2019s attorney then. stated that as defendant had not filed an affidavit of merits alleging that he had a good defense on the merits to the whole of plaintiff\u2019s claim the claim was admitted, and that the harden of proving the facts set np in defendant\u2019s amended plea as a defense to the action was on the defendant; that defendant\u2019s attorney then stated that he had supposed at the time he filed the plea and the amended plea, and until a few minutes ago, that, if on the trial of the issue made by defendant\u2019s amended plea the court should find against the defendant on that issue, defendant would then he allowed to file an amended affidavit of merits and that a trial of the case would then be had on the merits as to the amount due, if anything, to plaintiff; that the court ruled that any and all defenses must be set out in the affidavit of merits and all issues tried at the same time; that defendant\u2019s attorney then stated that defendant had a complete defense on the merits to the whole of plaintiff\u2019s claim, and moved the court that defendant be allowed to file an amended affidavit of merits to that effect; that the court overruled defendant\u2019s motion and ordered that the cause proceed to trial immediately, and ruled that the one issue to be tried was the issue presented by defendant\u2019s amended plea, and that the burden of proof as to that issue was on the defendant, and that, if defendant failed to make a prima facie case under said amended plea, plaintiff would be entitled to a judgment for the amount as stated in its affidavit of claim; that thereupon it was stipulated that \u201cplaintiff was and is a foreign corporation organized for profit, is not a railroad company, nor in the insurance, banking or money loaning business, * that plaintiff has not conformed with the requirements of the statute of this state for foreign corporations doing business in this state, and that the sole issue to be tried * * * is whether or not plaintiff * * * has been doing business in this state in violation of said statute;\u201d that thereupon the defendant and a witness named Dowling testified, and certain documentary evidence was introduced on behalf of defendant; that the court, on motion of plaintiff, held that defendant had not made out a sufficient prima facie case that plaintiff had been \u201cdoing business\u201d in this state in violation of the statute and found the issues for the plaintiff and assessed plaintiff\u2019s damages at said sum of $1,189.51, and subsequently entered judgment upon the finding.\nIt is urged by counsel for the defendant that the court erred (1) in holding that defendant had not shown, prima facie, that plaintiff had been doing business in this state in violation of the statute, and (2) in refusing to allow defendant to file an amended affidavit of merits and to introduce evidence in support of his contention that he was not indebted to plaintiff in any sum whatsoever.\nAfter a careful examination of the record and the briefs and arguments of the respective counsel, we have reached the conclusion that the judgment in this case should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. We refrain therefore from a discussion of the evidence introduced by defendant in support of the allegations contained in his amended plea. Suffice it to say that we are of the opinion that the court was not warranted in holding that plaintiff had not been doing business in this state in violation of-the statute. The evidence offered by the defendant disclosed certain facts which, uncontradicted, tended to support the allegations of defendant\u2019s plea.\nWe are also of the opinion that under the circumstances the trial court erred in refusing to allow defendant to file an amended affidavit of merits, as requested by defendant, and in refusing to give defendant an opportunity of showing, if he could, that he was not indebted to plaintiff. Misch v. McAlpine, 78 Ill. 507; Bemis v. Homer, 145 Ill. 567; Merchants\u2019 Nat. Ins. Co. v. Pearce, 84 Ill. App. 255; Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 130 Ill. App. 205.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. H. Arnold, for appellant; A. N. Waterman, of counsel.",
      "Jesse G. Henderson and Kai P. Hammer, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Reed Manufacturing Company, Appellee, v. John M. Foley, Appellant.\nGen. No. 17,860.\nMunicipal cotjbt \u2014 affidavit of merits. Where defendant in a municipal court case files a verified plea that plaintiff is a foreign corporation doing business in this state without a license, and such issue is found against him, he should be permitted to file an amended affidavit of merits showing that he is not indebted to plaintiff.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate court at the October term, 1911.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 6, 1913.\nE. H. Arnold, for appellant; A. N. Waterman, of counsel.\nJesse G. Henderson and Kai P. Hammer, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0072-01",
  "first_page_order": 90,
  "last_page_order": 93
}