{
  "id": 2830654,
  "name": "Maplewood Colliery Company, Plaintiff in Error v. Otto F. Siebenmann, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Maplewood Colliery Co. v. Siebenmann",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,114",
  "first_page": "452",
  "last_page": "453",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 452"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 143,
    "char_count": 1664,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "sha256": "4a333c71b71190e6263942c0e3e3201d3e2b311846a11d4853fc1f087acd9553",
    "simhash": "1:a959cc1ffa3f01d9",
    "word_count": 272
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Maplewood Colliery Company, Plaintiff in Error v. Otto F. Siebenmann, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Chiperfield & Chiperfield, for plaintiff in error.",
      "William Mannhardt, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Maplewood Colliery Company, Plaintiff in Error v. Otto F. Siebenmann, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 18,114.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William E. Devbb, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 15, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction of replevin by Maplewood Colliery Company against Otto F. Siebenmann. From an alternative judgment requiring the delivery of the property to defendant or in default thereof that defendant recover two hundred and seventy dollars and costs, plaintiff brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Continuance, \u00a7 36 -when properly denied'. Where a motion for a continuance is properly denied and a second motion prays for continuance upon the same ground, such second motion should also be denied, since to; grant it would be to permit an amendment of the first motion.\n2. Appeal and errob, \u00a7 1035*\u2014when assignment of error is necessary. Where there is no assignment of error because of the action of a court in proceeding to trial without a rule on the plaintiff to reply to several pleas filed, such plaintiff cannot object to \u2018 such action.\n3. Replevin, \u00a7 159*\u2014when alternative judgment is proper. An alternative judgment for defendant is proper where a plaintiff replevied property which a defendant had performed work on and as to which work plaintiff was indebted to defendant for.\nChiperfield & Chiperfield, for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam Mannhardt, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0452-01",
  "first_page_order": 476,
  "last_page_order": 477
}