{
  "id": 2856684,
  "name": "William Rauen, Appellee, v. Andrew Benson, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rauen v. Benson",
  "decision_date": "1916-02-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,967",
  "first_page": "65",
  "last_page": "67",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 65"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "250 Ill. 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3430664
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/250/0416-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 Ill. 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4795701
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/268/0305-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 2777,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.654,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08512832215314484
    },
    "sha256": "b32e9395e5d2529566a4f3a91cbd7e6f4bd6b6c31f9f9df512bc4e84105dba9e",
    "simhash": "1:2a73fdb7d06a9af8",
    "word_count": 468
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Rauen, Appellee, v. Andrew Benson, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellant brings the statutory record in this case to this court for review. Appellee has failed to appear or favor us with brief or argument.\nJudgment was rendered upon the finding of the court in favor of appellee against appellant for $663, and appellant says that the amended statement of claim under which the cause went to trial does not state a cause of action. This case is one of the \u201cfirst class\u201d under the Municipal Court Act and is a \u201ccontract claim.\u201d\nThe material averments of the statement of claim are that \u201cplaintiff\u2019s claim is for the value of goods appropriated by defendants of the kind and value as follows\u201d\u2014setting out a list of certain personal property alleged to be of the aggregate value of $1,744.60. This is not the statement of a claim resting either in contract or tort. No contractual relation is stated to exist between the parties and nothing is alleged which in law constitutes a tort. If the statement of claim defectively set forth a cause of action, the finding and judgment of the court would be a sufficient curative. But where the statement found in the record fails, as does this, to state any cause of action, no subsequent proceeding, finding or judgment will aid it. On such a statement nought can be predicated, as it presents nothing upon which any presumption can be based. While the statement need not state a cause of action \u201cwith the particularity required at common law,\u201d still it must state some cause of action cognizable by the courts under settled rules of procedure. Gilman v. Chicago Railways Co., 268 Ill. 305, and Walter Cabinet Co. v. Russell, 250 Ill. 416, amply sustain the foregoing legal conclusions.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed and the cause is remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bentley, Burling & Swan, for appellant.",
      "George Remus, for appellee,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Rauen, Appellee, v. Andrew Benson, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,967.\nMunicipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13-wlten statement of claim insufficient. A statement of claim in an action of the first class ia the Municipal Court of Chicago, the material avermeats ot which are that \"plaintiff's claim is for the value of goods appropriated by defendants of the kind and value as follows,\" setting out there-. after a list of certain personal property, is insufficient in that it does not state a cause of action coguizable by the courts under settled rules of procedure.\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.\nRehearing denied February 28, 1916.\nBentley, Burling & Swan, for appellant.\nGeorge Remus, for appellee,\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0065-01",
  "first_page_order": 89,
  "last_page_order": 91
}