{
  "id": 2910469,
  "name": "George F. Schumann, Defendant in Error, v. Neal Karl Eikoos, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schumann v. Eikoos",
  "decision_date": "1914-11-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,994",
  "first_page": "383",
  "last_page": "384",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 383"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2142,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "sha256": "e352309d97c3313b1ada999afdf0408fcfac154514a556e3428a3206281dd9cb",
    "simhash": "1:19431a3ecb2d43b1",
    "word_count": 358
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George F. Schumann, Defendant in Error, v. Neal Karl Eikoos, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel G. Grodson, for plaintiff in error.",
      "William H. Tatge, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George F. Schumann, Defendant in Error, v. Neal Karl Eikoos, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,994.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John Courtney, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 9, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by George F. Schumann against Neal Karl Eikoos. Plaintiff in his statement of claim alleged that his claim was for groceries and meats sold and delivered to defendant at his request by certain business firms, giving their names. Summons was served on defendant, who was defaulted for failure to appear, and judgment for plaintiff was entered for the amount claimed. Subsequently, defendant petitioned the court to set aside the default and to vacate the judgment, claiming that he had had no dealings with plaintiff. Plaintiff answered that at the time he commenced suit he was the owner by assignments of the claims mentioned in his statement of claim, and on motion he was given leave to file the assignments, which was done, and thereupon the court denied defendant\u2019s -motion to vacate the judgment. To reverse the judgment, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nAppeal and error, \u00a7 1573 \u2014when irregularity in proceeding to vacate default judgment not reversible error. On petition to vacate a default judgment, where it appeared that plaintiff sought to recover as assignee of choses of action but had not complied with the statute in alleging that he was the actual bona fide holder thereof or how and when he acquired title, held that the action of the court in allowing plaintiff to file\" the assignments of the claims sued on and thereupon denying the motion to vacate, though irregular, was not reversible error where the validity of the assignments was not questioned and there was no claim of any defense to the demands on the merits.\nSamuel G. Grodson, for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam H. Tatge, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0383-01",
  "first_page_order": 409,
  "last_page_order": 410
}
