{
  "id": 2860978,
  "name": "Wesley Shimeall, Appellee, v. Ernst E. Lehmann, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shimeall v. Lehmann",
  "decision_date": "1916-02-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,887",
  "first_page": "29",
  "last_page": "31",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 29"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 207,
    "char_count": 2967,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "sha256": "423fabf1468c34d635bd2aaed4b2408eeec62e40f94808b938c567f72b54fa34",
    "simhash": "1:b1ff5dd5d786125f",
    "word_count": 495
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Wesley Shimeall, Appellee, v. Ernst E. Lehmann, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Francis W. Walker and Charles E. Selleck, for appellant.",
      "Jonas O. Hoover, for appellee,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Wesley Shimeall, Appellee, v. Ernst E. Lehmann, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,887.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed February 14, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nCase of the first class in the Municipal Court, for goods sold and money loaned by Wesley Shimeall, plaintiff, against Ernst E. Lehmann, defendant. Defendant filed an affidavit of defense as follows:\n\u201cDefendant believes that he has a good defense upon the merits to the whole of the plaintiff\u2019s demand, as follows: The whole sum, exclusive of interest, sued for, including item for diamond ring and money loaned, \u2022was, on or about July 26, 1913, paid by defendant and thereafter received by plaintiff; as to item of interest, sued for, on ground of alleged vexatious delay in payment, the.nature of the defense thereto is, that said payment included interest up to the time thereof, and, in addition, there was, and has been, no vexatious delay in payment. \u2019 \u2019\nUpon motion of plaintiff the court struck the affidavit from the files and entered judgment against defendant.\nPlaintiff contended that the affidavit was insufficient under the rules of the Municipal Court. Defendant argued that it was sufficient. The rules of the Municipal Court, which were preserved for review, provide that defendant shall file an affidavit that he believes he has a good defense upon the merits, \u201cspecifying the nature of such defense, whether by way of denial or by way of confession and avoidance in such a manner as to reasonably inform the plaintiff of the defense which will be interposed at the trial.\u201d By rule 20 it is provided that it shall not be sufficient for defendant\u2019s affidavit \u201cto deny generally the facts alleged by the statement of claim * * *. Any denial of any allegation of fact made by the opposite party must not be evasive but must answer the point of substance.\u201d\nFrancis W. Walker and Charles E. Selleck, for appellant.\nJonas O. Hoover, for appellee,\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13 \u2014when affidavit of defense sufficient. In an action of the first class in the Municipal Court of Chicago for goods sold and money loaned, the affidavit of defense examined and held sufficiently to comply with the rules of the Municipal Court.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13 \u2014when rules do not require that evidentiary facts he pleaded. The rules of the Municipal Court of Chicago do not require that evidentiary facts be pleaded in the affidavit of defense.\n3. Payment, \u00a7 24 \u2014when plea sufficient. In an action for goods sold and money loaned, a plea that before action defendant satisfied and discharged plaintiff\u2019s claim by payment is a good plea.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0029-01",
  "first_page_order": 53,
  "last_page_order": 55
}