{
  "id": 2847483,
  "name": "Julius Gebhard, Appellee, v. Brewers Malting Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gebhard v. Brewers Malting Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,836",
  "first_page": "254",
  "last_page": "255",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 254"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 3759,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.542,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.844506106891794e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5339546823000105
    },
    "sha256": "a0a46d3436ffcf967728609a29edd1f2a07c1e062b1f3b0bc376b225ac03a50e",
    "simhash": "1:583fee65754284ef",
    "word_count": 630
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Julius Gebhard, Appellee, v. Brewers Malting Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scanlan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 299 \u2014what constitutes final orders in attachment proceeding. Where a judgment is entered against the defendant by default and subsequently the court denies defendant\u2019s motion to vacate the judgment, the judgment order and the order denying the motion to vacate are both final orders and the defendant has a right to appeal from either or both.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 19 \u2014separate appeals. To obtain a review by appeal of a judgment entered by default and also an order denying a motion to vacate the judgment, there must be a separate appeal from each order.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 299 \u2014when defendant in attachment may appeal from default judgment. Defendant in attachment may appeal from a default judgment entered against him, though the case has not been finally disposed of as to the garnishees.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1332 \u2014when evidence justifying default' presumed heard under common counts. Although a special count in a declaration shows no cause of action, if the declaration contains the common counts and judgment is rendered by default it will be presumed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions showing the contrary, that the court heard evidence to justify the judgment under the common counts.\n5. Attachment, \u00a7 236\u2014time of filing declaration. In an attachment proceeding a judgment hy default may be entered against the defendant at the next term of court, though the declaration was not filed ten days before the commencement of said term.\n6. Judgment, \u00a7 252 \u2014what constitutes basis for amendment of judgment order after term. Where a judgment order on a default judgment recites the assessment of plaintiff\u2019s damages at the sum of \u201cSeventeen Hundred and Thirty Dollars and Sixty Cents\u201d, and in another portion of the order judgment is rendered for plaintiff for \u201cSeventeen Hundred and Thirty and Sixty Cents in form as aforesaid by the court assessed\u201d while in the part of the order referring to a conditional judgment against the garnishees the word \u201cdollars\u201d appeared in the amount specified followed by: \u201cbeing the amount of the judgment heretofore entered herein against the defendant,\u201d it was held that the order itself furnished a sufficient basis for an amendment inserting the word \u201cdollars\u201d in the amount named in the clause reciting the rendition of judgment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scanlan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alvin W. Wise, for appellant.",
      "Chase B. Bankin, for appellee; Binar C. Howard, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Julius Gebhard, Appellee, v. Brewers Malting Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,836.\n(Tiot to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas G. WrsroES, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 5, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nSuit in attachment by Julius Gebhard against Brewers Malting Company, a corporation, upon a written contract. The writ was levied on real estate of the defendant. Personal service was had upon certain garnishees and service upon defendant was by publication. The declaration was not filed until two days before the next term of court. A default was entered against defendant and damages were assessed at $1,730.60. From a judgment entered against defendant for such amount, defendant appeals.\nOn one of the days of the term at which judgment was entered against defendant, the court denied a motion to vacate the default and judgment, and the defendant at the next term of court sued out a writ of error to review the action of the court in denying the motion, which writ of error was pending at the time of this appeal. See Gebhard v. Brewers Malting Co., post, p. 256.\nAlvin W. Wise, for appellant.\nChase B. Bankin, for appellee; Binar C. Howard, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0254-01",
  "first_page_order": 280,
  "last_page_order": 281
}