{
  "id": 2863245,
  "name": "Clara Stiefel, Individually and as Administratrix, Appellee, v. Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 73 et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stiefel v. Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 73",
  "decision_date": "1916-02-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,872",
  "first_page": "94",
  "last_page": "95",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 94"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 203,
    "char_count": 2761,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "sha256": "2ea78ed631a3d053b3eb78806f3d51873b75fd2e3958c58cc0ecc1c0bf556227",
    "simhash": "1:c31557a5853e009b",
    "word_count": 457
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Clara Stiefel, Individually and as Administratrix, Appellee, v. Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers\u2019 Local Union No. 73 et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Pam\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Pam"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cruice & Langille, for appellants; Daniel L. Cruice, of counsel.",
      "Bulkley, More & Tallmadge, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Clara Stiefel, Individually and as Administratrix, Appellee, v. Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers\u2019 Local Union No. 73 et al., Appellants.\nGen. No. 21,872.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Foell, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAppeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed February 16, 1916.\nRehearing denied March 1, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill for specific performance of insurance contract filed by Clara Stiefel, appellee and complainant below, as administratrix of the estate of Abraham Stiefel, deceased, against the Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers\u2019 Local Union No. 73, International Alliance, a corporation, and Thomas Redding, Edgar Ray, B. A. Schooley and Paul Christman. Prom a- decree for complainant, defendants appeal.\nAfter a hearing upon the bill and answers, the chancellor found the issues for complainant and entered a decree which incorporated the defendants\u2019 joint prayer for appeal, and wherein the appeal was allowed upon the filing by defendants of a bond for $1,600. The record showed that only three out of the five defendants had signed the bond, although the decree required the bond to be \"filed by all the defendants, and was entered upon their joint prayer.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 16 \u2014when right of appeal exists. The right of appeal is purely a statutory one and can he availed of only when allowed by court, and must then be in conformity with the prayer for the appeal and the order of allowance.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 646*\u2014when appeal not in compliance with prayer or order. Where the record shows that an appeal was granted upon prayer of all the defendants and the order of appeal required bond to be filed by all the defendants, and it was nevertheless perfected by only three of such defendants, such appeal is not in compliance with the prayer or order, and motion to dismiss must be allowed.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 646*\u2014when joint defendants must perfect appeal jointly. Where there were no separate prayers for appeals by individual defendants, and where all of the joint defendants joined in the prayer for an appeal, they must perfect same jointly, regardless of the fact that no substantial rights of several of the defendants were affected by the decree appealed from. -\nMotion was made by complainant to dismiss the appeal for failure on the part of defendants to comply with the prayer for appeal and order thereon.\nCruice & Langille, for appellants; Daniel L. Cruice, of counsel.\nBulkley, More & Tallmadge, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same tonic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0094-01",
  "first_page_order": 118,
  "last_page_order": 119
}