{
  "id": 8500460,
  "name": "O. M. Steffenson, Appellee, v. Harry Bostrom, Guardian, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Steffenson v. Bostrom",
  "decision_date": "1913-04-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,976",
  "first_page": "516",
  "last_page": "518",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "178 Ill. App. 516"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "131 Ill. 552",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5418466
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/131/0552-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5221347
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/44/0123-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 Ill. 46",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5438243
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "56"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/134/0046-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 Ill. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3146163
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "425"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/178/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 Ill. 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5416451
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/131/0609-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 Ill. 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5418589
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/131/0182-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ill. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2683162
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "375"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/80/0371-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 268,
    "char_count": 4426,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2051038496839005
    },
    "sha256": "2124d03657114ade889044a1a12027d88ec7e13fd28ea1de42c072297d85fb5b",
    "simhash": "1:9d7764e904b380e1",
    "word_count": 743
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:56:36.464744+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "O. M. Steffenson, Appellee, v. Harry Bostrom, Guardian, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Cook county for $135, rendered February 25, 1911, in favor of 0. M. Steffenson, a physician, plaintiff, against Harry Bostrom, defendant. The judgment order directed the judgment \u201cto he paid in due course of administration. \u2019 \u2019 The cause was tried before the court without a jury.\nIt appears from the transcript of the record that the suit was originally commenced before a justice of the peace of Cook county, and on November 9, 1906, plaintiff recovered a judgment before said justice against \u201cHarry Bostrom, guardian of the estate of Buth Bos-trom\u201d for $150; that an appeal was taken to said Superior Court, where a trial was had on June 5, 1908, before the court without a jury, resulting in a finding in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $55; that on motion of plaintiff and consent of defendant, said finding -was set aside and a new trial awarded. The second trial resulted in the judgment from which this appeal is taken.\nIt further appears that the suit is for two so-called \u201csets of medical services,\u201d the first, rendered by plaintiff to defendant\u2019s minor daughter, Buth Bostrom, in the presence of her mother in 1902, and one visit in 1905-; tlie other, rendered \"by plaintiff in 1906, in connection with the preparation for trial, which trial soon thereafter occurred, of the case of Ruth Bostrom, by her next friend, Harry Bostrom, against the Union Traction Company, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by said daughter.\nThe evidence as to what services were rendered, and as to whether or not the defendant expressly or impliedly agreed to pay plaintiff for the same, is very conflicting, but, after a careful review of the testimony, we are of the opinion that the finding of the court is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence, as contended by defendant\u2019s counsel.\nCounsel further contends that as the suit was against the defendant, described as \u201cguardian of the estate of Ruth Bostrom, minor,\u201d the judgment against him personally is erroneous. Under the facts of this case, and under the law, we cannot agree with, the contention. Sperry v. Fanning, 80 Ill. 371, 375; Kingsbury v. Powers, 131 Ill. 182; Johnson v. Leman, 131 Ill. 609; Bradner Smith & Co. v. Williams, 178 Ill. 420, 425.\nCounsel further contends that the judgment order, because of the direction \u201cto be paid in due course of administration,\u201d is erroneous,.and that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial had. We are of the opinion that this error will necessitate a reversal of the judgment, but as no error had intervened up to and including the overruling of defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial, no occasion exists for awarding a venire facias de novo. In accordance with the decisions of McNulta v. Ensch, 134 Ill. 46, 56; Storing v. Onley, 44 Ill. 123; Meyer v. Village of Teutopolis, 131 Ill. 552, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded to the Superior Court with instructions to enter judgment in the usual form, upon the finding of the court, against the defendant, Harry Bostrom, personally, each party to pay his own costs in this court.\nReversed and remanded with directions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. 0. Peterson, for appellant.",
      "CameboN & MatsoN, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O. M. Steffenson, Appellee, v. Harry Bostrom, Guardian, Appellant.\nGen. No. 17,976.\n1. Guardian and ward \u2014 personal judgment against guardian. In an action against defendant as guardian of the estate of a minor, his daughter, for medical services rendered to the daughter, a personal judgment against defendant is not erroneous.\n2. Judgments \u2014 when judgment order is erroneous. Where a personal judgment is rendered against defendant, a guardian, an order that it \u201che paid in due course of administration\u201d is erroneous.\n3. Appeais and ereobs \u2014 when error does not necessitate new trial. Where no error intervened up to and including the' overruling of defendant\u2019s motion for new trial, and an erroneous direction is included in the judgment order, the judgment is reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment in the usual form, each party to pay his own costs in the court of review.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard E. Burke, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate\nCourt at the October term, 1911.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed April 3, 1913.\nO. 0. Peterson, for appellant.\nCameboN & MatsoN, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0516-01",
  "first_page_order": 534,
  "last_page_order": 536
}