{
  "id": 2876016,
  "name": "Robert W. Schupp, Appellee, v. State Bank of Monticello, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schupp v. State Bank",
  "decision_date": "1915-11-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,954",
  "first_page": "322",
  "last_page": "322",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 322"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 110,
    "char_count": 1080,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "sha256": "f8b815340fc7432a8734655753df778b9fe15c26012a0057625d01178c467751",
    "simhash": "1:031383f0974b0584",
    "word_count": 176
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robert W. Schupp, Appellee, v. State Bank of Monticello, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James Bingham and Castle, Williams, Long & Castle, for appellant.",
      "Adams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey, for appellee; Mitchell D. Follansbee, Clyde E. Shorey and John E. Gavin, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert W. Schupp, Appellee, v. State Bank of Monticello, Appellant.\nGen. No. 20,954.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Clarence N. Goodwin, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 15, 1915.\nAction by Robert W. Schupp, plaintiff, against the State Bank of Monticello, defendant, in the Superior Court of Cook county.\nThe facts in the above entitled case, with unimportant differences, are similar to those set forth in Barth v. Farmers & Traders Bank, ante,p. 318, in which an opinion was filed the same day, and present the same questions. The proceeding held to be reversible error in that ease also occurred in this, and the reason for reversing and remanding in that case is applicable to this case.\nJames Bingham and Castle, Williams, Long & Castle, for appellant.\nAdams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey, for appellee; Mitchell D. Follansbee, Clyde E. Shorey and John E. Gavin, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0322-01",
  "first_page_order": 348,
  "last_page_order": 348
}