{
  "id": 2841505,
  "name": "James Burbridge, Appellant, v. John A. Howard et al., Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Burbridge v. Howard",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "185",
  "last_page": "186",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 Ill. App. 185"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2049,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3050757013246718
    },
    "sha256": "65cb5194f7eb531c627651943b9ab169c0e0c7ce43960c6889d2da749eca9eb4",
    "simhash": "1:4a81caa0f81b22d8",
    "word_count": 338
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:47:41.859813+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James Burbridge, Appellant, v. John A. Howard et al., Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Creighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Pleading, \u00a7 232 \u2014discretion as to allowance of amendments. Though the power to grant leave to amend pleadings is within the discretion of the court, such discretion must in all cases he reasonably exercised.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1362 \u2014lohen refusal to permit amendment of declaration reversible error. In an action on an attachment bond, refusal of court to permit plaintiff to amend his declaration at the time of trial, held reversible error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Creighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Williams & Williams and Buckingham & McDavid, for appellant.",
      "Baldwin & Carey, Whitley & Fitzgerald and J. L. McLaughlin, for appellee\u2019s."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James Burbridge, Appellant, v. John A. Howard et al., Appellees.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Attachment, \u00a7 351 \u2014when action ties on attachment bond. Action lies on an attachment bond to recover at least nominal damages, where the attachment suit was dismissed at the plaintiff\u2019s cost, the bond providing that if attachment plaintiffs shall prosecute their suit with effect or in case of failure therein to pay costs and such damages as shall be awarded against them in any suit thereafter brought for wrongfully suing out the attachment, then the bond shall be mill and void.\n2. Pleading, \u00a7 230 \u2014statute permitting amendments construed. Practice Act, ch. 110, \u00a7 39, J. & A. \u00b6 8576, permitting amendments to be made on such terms as may be just and reasonable, does not permit the trial court in its discretion to deprive a party of a substantial right through defects or omissions in pleadings.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. William C. Johns, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the April term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 16, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by James Burbridge against John A. Howard and others to recover on an attachment bond. From a judgment in favor of the defendants entered upon a directed verdict, plaintiff appeals.\nWilliams & Williams and Buckingham & McDavid, for appellant.\nBaldwin & Carey, Whitley & Fitzgerald and J. L. McLaughlin, for appellee\u2019s.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0185-01",
  "first_page_order": 209,
  "last_page_order": 210
}