{
  "id": 2883696,
  "name": "Hugo Oppenheim and Bernard Strauss, trading as Oppenheim & Strauss, Defendants in Error, v. J. H. Mower, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Oppenheim v. Mower",
  "decision_date": "1915-04-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,231",
  "first_page": "48",
  "last_page": "49",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "193 Ill. App. 48"
    }
  ],
  "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": 2177,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.2786580729875817e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3310088734903077
    },
    "sha256": "42d4140d65bff5fd88905175daa8fa32c0ae4e14f9aeb7854427d5833bcdd46c",
    "simhash": "1:c143ceb09daf7edc",
    "word_count": 358
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:10:43.610055+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hugo Oppenheim and Bernard Strauss, trading as Oppenheim & Strauss, Defendants in Error, v. J. H. Mower, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nJudgments, \u00a7 84 \u2014when amendment not allowable. The amendment of a judgment three days after its entry so as to make it run in favor of \u201cHugo Oppenheim and Bernard Strauss, a Co-partnership, trading as Oppenheim & Strauss\u201d instead of being in favor of \u201cOppenheim & Strauss, a corporation\u201d is not an amendment for a defect or imperfection in matter of form and is, therefore, not authorized by the Statute of Amendments and Jeofails (J. & A. H 301).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error.",
      "S. R. Clute, for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hugo Oppenheim and Bernard Strauss, trading as Oppenheim & Strauss, Defendants in Error, v. J. H. Mower, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,231.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon.. John J. Rooney, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914. and reversed and remanded in rehearing opinion filed June 4, 1915.\nAffirmed\nin opinion filed April 13, 1915,\nStatement of the Case.\nThe action in this case was started in the court below to recover for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered by Oppenheim & Strauss, a corporation. After a hearing, the trial court, on February 2, 1914, entered a finding against the defendant and in favor of Oppenheim & Strauss, a corporation, and upon this finding a judgment was entered on the same day. On February 5th, three days after judgment had been entered, the attorney for the plaintiff, on due notice given the defendant, the plaintiff in error here, appeared and moved the court upon his unsworn statement alone to enter an order amending the prcecipe, statement of claim, summons, record and entry of. judgment by striking from all the papers and record the words, \u201ca corporation,\u201d as a description of the plaintiff below, and inserting instead the words \u201cHugo Oppenheim and Bernard Strauss, a Co-partnership, trading as Oppenheim & Strauss.\u201d The court sustained the motion and ordered the amendments and the judgment to be corrected.\nMoses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error.\nS. R. Clute, for defendants in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0048-01",
  "first_page_order": 70,
  "last_page_order": 71
}