{
  "id": 2856958,
  "name": "Gennaro Calabrese, Appellee, v. Anton J. Cermak, Bailiff, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Calabrese v. Cermak",
  "decision_date": "1916-03-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,341",
  "first_page": "418",
  "last_page": "419",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 418"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 2982,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.519,
    "sha256": "c19c82c1ba5e88503091199dbf6f48c385a7f5c6c58ae7118d4eb9c354c19859",
    "simhash": "1:811fdde1342e059d",
    "word_count": 510
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gennaro Calabrese, Appellee, v. Anton J. Cermak, Bailiff, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel M. Mickey, for appellant.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gennaro Calabrese, Appellee, v. Anton J. Cermak, Bailiff, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,341.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Clarence N. Goodwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 28, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction in replevin by Gennaro Calabrese, plaintiff, against Anton J. Cermak, bailiff of the Municipal Court, defendant. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nThe suit was tried before the court without a jury. The court found the defendant Cermak g-uilty and the right of possession of the property in question in plaintiff. The property was levied on under a judgment in favor of the Common Sense Company against Calabrese\u2019s brother Vincent. No propositions of law were submitted to the court to be held as such and no question of law was otherwise presented in the r\u00e9cord. The only question considered by the Appellate Court was the sufficiency of the evidence as to the ownership of the property.\nThe property levied on consisted of a soda water fountain, a show case, a safe and cash register in a drug store that had been owned and conducted by Vincent for some years. Being indebted to Gennaro he executed a bill of sale to him of the drug stock and fixtures, including said property so levied on, on September 19, 1913. Gennaro took possession on that date and sought to evidence the transaction by recording his bill of sale September 22nd. He hired a party to conduct the store and gave Vincent desk room therein for another line of business. His possession seemed to have been an open one. It was conceded that no notice of the sale was previously given to the Common Sense Company. While such company had received an order from Vincent for goods prior to said sale, it did not deliver them until subsequent thereto, and there was no evidence that established either in law or fact the relationship of creditor and debtor between said company and Vincent prior to said sale.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nReplevin, \u00a7 124 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show ownership in plaintiff. In a replevin action where the property levied on had been turned over to plaintiff by bill of sale, which was recorded, and such property, consisting of a soda fountain, show case, etc., in a drug store, was so given on account of indebtedness of plaintiff\u2019s brother to him and plaintiff\u2019s possession was open, and the judgment creditor on behalf of whom the levy was made did not appear to have been a creditor of plaintiff\u2019s brother prior to the sale, the evidence held sufficient to establish that the transaction in the bill of sale was valid and free from fraud, and that the ownership of the property was in plaintiff.\nDaniel M. Mickey, for appellant.\nNo appearance for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0418-01",
  "first_page_order": 442,
  "last_page_order": 443
}