{
  "id": 2833087,
  "name": "Fred G. Richmire, Defendant in Error, v. George A. Neeves, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Richmire v. Neeves",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,322",
  "first_page": "77",
  "last_page": "78",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 77"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2081,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "sha256": "4dc2d0c26cfd7d4dee72859daf6ea5156d8175ca7fddde98f0c82f99ede80404",
    "simhash": "1:1559d987d0fe1bfd",
    "word_count": 341
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fred G. Richmire, Defendant in Error, v. George A. Neeves, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n5. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 8*\u2014jurisdiction of suit on promissory, notes. Cause of action on promissory notes accrues within the city of Chicago so as to give the Municipal Court jurisdiction where the notes are expressly made payable in that city.\n6. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 29*\u2014presumption as to jurisdiction on review. Municipal Court held not such a local inferior court that no presumption may be indulged in favor of its jurisdiction.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George A. Neeves, Jr., and Leland K. Neeves, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Charles S. McNett, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fred G. Richmire, Defendant in Error, v. George A. Neeves, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,322.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Continuance, \u00a7 49 \u2014when statement of grounds, insufficient. Statements in affidavits that defendant is \u201cunable to attend the trial\u201d are mere conclusions of the deponents, and insufficient.\n2. Continuance, \u00a7 49*\u2014sufficiency of grounds. Affidavit stating that a party would testify as to certain matters shows no necessity for his presence where the matters alleged that he would testify to would be immaterial.\n3. Municipal Court oe Chicago, \u00a7 6*\u2014jurisdiction of subject matter. Jurisdiction of Municipal Court as to the subject-matter is conferred by statute.\n4. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 6\u2014when jurisdiction of person cannot be denied. In the Municipal Court, jurisdiction of the person cannot be denied after a general appearance has been entered and an affidavit of merits has been filed.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Fred C. Eiehmire against George A. Neeves in the Municipal Court of Chicago to recover on three promissory notes signed by defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for four hundred dollars, defendant brings error.\nGeorge A. Neeves, Jr., and Leland K. Neeves, for plaintiff in error.\nCharles S. McNett, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0077-01",
  "first_page_order": 101,
  "last_page_order": 102
}