{
  "id": 2900767,
  "name": "Isadore B. Simco, Defendant in Error, v. Morris M. Mankowitz, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Simco v. Mankowitz",
  "decision_date": "1913-11-04",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,771",
  "first_page": "632",
  "last_page": "633",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 Ill. App. 632"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2291,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "sha256": "480efd5b2b5cc05ea37f871283cad95b8af4989bf0b09b8f836556bb67ce72a6",
    "simhash": "1:be11cf1d11e5a40c",
    "word_count": 385
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:36.956740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Isadore B. Simco, Defendant in Error, v. Morris M. Mankowitz, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice F. A. Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice F. A. Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry L. Strohm, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Isadore B. Simco, Defendant in Error, v. Morris M. Mankowitz, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,771.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded on rehearing.\nOpinion filed November 4, 1913.\nRehearing allowed and additional opinion filed January 13, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nA judgment by confession for $125 was entered in the Municipal Court of Chicago in favor of Isadore B. Simco against Morris M. Mankowitz on a promissory note and power of attorney authorizing the entry of judgment, and a cognovit confessing judgment on the note. Defendant moved to set aside and vacate the judgment, the motion being based on a petition and affidavit. From a denial of the motion, defendant brought error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Judgment, \u00a7 80 \u2014when judgment by confession may be var cated. The court has power to entertain a motion and petition to vacate a judgment by confession where more than thirty days has elapsed after the entry of judgment.\n2. Judgment, \u00a7 75*\u2014when petition presents equitable \u25a0 grounds for vacating judgment. A petition to vacate a judgment by confession alleging that the ex parte proceedings were had without the defendant\u2019s knowledge, that all equities and defenses of the maker of the note existed against the plaintiff, that plaintiff was not an innocent purchaser of the note but a party to fraud perpetrated on the defendant, that the note was void and without consideration, and that plaintiff\u2019s assignor was guilty of breach of warranty in the sale of an automobile and agreed to make the warranty good, pre-. sents equitable grounds for relief entitling the defendant to plead.\n3. Judgment, \u00a7 80*\u2014when judgment by confession may be vacated. Under section 21 of the Municipal Court Act, the court may vacate a judgment after thirty days from its entry, on a petition setting forth facts sufficient to cause the same to be vacated in a court of equity.\nHenry L. Strohm, for plaintiff in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0632-01",
  "first_page_order": 654,
  "last_page_order": 655
}