{
  "id": 2975537,
  "name": "Rose Lange, Defendant in Error, v. Sadie Stack and Anton J. Cermak, Bailiff, Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lange v. Stack",
  "decision_date": "1916-06-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,583",
  "first_page": "538",
  "last_page": "538",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 Ill. App. 538"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 151,
    "char_count": 1763,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "sha256": "0362a6490e00b1ff9dd3cb048f8f7d56da6079cad3f66dbe3bbf0cad1a3076a1",
    "simhash": "1:db59d8b6b0ad89f8",
    "word_count": 301
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:30.955611+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Rose Lange, Defendant in Error, v. Sadie Stack and Anton J. Cermak, Bailiff, Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Feed A. Bangs, for plaintiffs in error; Richard H. Colby, of counsel.",
      "Ludwig R. Dejmek and Joseph Burke, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Rose Lange, Defendant in Error, v. Sadie Stack and Anton J. Cermak, Bailiff, Plaintiffs in Error.\nGen. No. 21,583.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 966 \u2014when questions of law not preserved for review. Where, on appeal, the abstract of record discloses no objections taken to the testimony, no propositions submitted to be held as law, and no motion except at the close of the evidence to dismiss the case for want of a prima facie showing, all there is for review is the trial court\u2019s action in overruling such motion.\n2. Execution, \u00a7 127*\u2014when evidence sufficient to sustain judgment for plaintiff. In an action for the trial of the right to property taken on execution, evidence showing that some of the articles of property in question were either gifts to the plaintiff or purchased by her with money given her by her relatives, and making prima facie proof of her ownership to the rest of the property, held sufficient to sustain a judgment for the plaintiff.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John K. Prindiville, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 1, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Rose Lange, plaintiff, against Sadie Stack and Anton J. Cermak, as bailiff of the Municipal Court of Chicago, defendants, to try the right to property taken on execution. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nFeed A. Bangs, for plaintiffs in error; Richard H. Colby, of counsel.\nLudwig R. Dejmek and Joseph Burke, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0538-01",
  "first_page_order": 560,
  "last_page_order": 560
}