{
  "id": 5417857,
  "name": "Abram Feldman, Defendant in Error, v. Abram Polishuck and Sarah Polishuck, Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Feldman v. Polishuck",
  "decision_date": "1916-06-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,216",
  "first_page": "15",
  "last_page": "17",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "200 Ill. App. 15"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "100 Ill. 82",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2823517
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/100/0082-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 3497,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15923669681128128
    },
    "sha256": "11658ed021699bf40d179cf507e50407885b2b8e2dd8457ba24f2269c82b9428",
    "simhash": "1:9215bbb9b3393769",
    "word_count": 596
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:22.374886+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Abram Feldman, Defendant in Error, v. Abram Polishuck and Sarah Polishuck, Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn this case judgment for $1,025 was entered against defendants upon a declaration and cognovit by virtue of a power of attorney contained in a judgment note authorizing any attorney of record to appear and confess judgment in favor of the holder of the note. Upon motion of the defendants, leave was given by the court to defendants \u201cto plead to the plaintiff\u2019s declaration within ten days.\u201d The judgment was ordered to stand as security. Thereupon defendants filed a general demurrer to plaintiff\u2019s declaration. The court overruled this demurrer and required defendants to plead instanter. Defendants declining to do this, they were defaulted for failure to comply with the rule to plead, and it was ordered that the judgment stand in full force and effect.\nDid the defendants by filing a general demurrer comply with the order of the court giving leave to plead to the declaration? We hold that they did not. It has many times been held that the motion for leave to plead to a declaration, where a judgment has- already been entered by confession, is addressed to the equitable discretion of the court. This would imply that there should be brought to the attention of the court facts or matters constituting a meritorious defense, that is, facts which if proven would induce the court-to be of the opinion that it would work an injustice to permit the judgment to stand. When, therefore, the court, in the exercise of its equitable discretion, has entered an order giving leave to defendant \u201cto plead to the declaration,\u201d we are of the opinion that the use of the word \u201cplead\u201d must be confined to the original and technical sense in which the word is used. Chitty makes the statement that pleas \u201cgo to the merits of, the case,\u201d as distinguished from a demurrer, which means that a defendant \u201cwill go no further because the other has not shown sufficient matter against him that he is bound to answer.\u201d Or, as Stephen on Pleading puts it (p. 46): \u201cIf the defendant does not demur, his only alternative method of defense is to oppose or answer the declaration by matter of fact. In so doing, he is said to plead (by way of distinction from demurring) and the answer of fact so made, is called the plea.\u201d It must be in this sense that leave was given to defendants \u201cto .plead,\u201d and defendants failing to do so were rightly adjudged to be in default. This view is entirely consisent with what is said in Borchsenius v. Canutson, 100 Ill. 82.\nThe judgment was proper and is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. A. Zelensky, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Abram Feldman, Defendant in Error, v. Abram Polishuck and Sarah Polishuck, Plaintiffs in Error.\nGen. No. 22,216.\nPleading, \u00a7 69 -\u2014when filing of demurrer not pleading to declaration. After judgment by confession against defendant, leave was given him, on his motion, to plead to plaintiff\u2019s declaration, whereupon defendant filed a general demurrer .to the declaration, which was overruled, and defendant was required to plead instanter and, upon his declining to do so, he was defaulted for failure to comply with the rule to plead. Held,, that judgment against defendant was proper.\nError to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Oscab M. Tobrison, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 26, 1916.\nM. A. Zelensky, for plaintiffs in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yole, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0015-01",
  "first_page_order": 37,
  "last_page_order": 39
}