{
  "id": 2965193,
  "name": "First National Bank of Allegan, Michigan, Defendant in Error, v. Chicago Sanitary Rag Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "First National Bank v. Chicago Sanitary Rag Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-10-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,601",
  "first_page": "507",
  "last_page": "508",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 507"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 144,
    "char_count": 1692,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.565,
    "sha256": "f4746ce1fb9933b77dc043b51edbf3c1546d5e1485c187a396f8271eedd61038",
    "simhash": "1:c9c3a831d00f1c9e",
    "word_count": 278
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "First National Bank of Allegan, Michigan, Defendant in Error, v. Chicago Sanitary Rag Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McGoorty\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McGoorty"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Benjamin P. Ruekberg, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Musgrave, Oppenheim & Lee, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "First National Bank of Allegan, Michigan, Defendant in Error, v. Chicago Sanitary Rag Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,601.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\nContinuance, \u00a7 66 \u2014when refusal of motion for on ground of absence of material witness is harmless error. Refusal of the trial court to grant the defendant\u2019s motion for a continuance on the ground o\u00ed the absence of a material witness, held not reversible error where the affidavit filed in support of the motion, though setting forth that the witness was an important witness for the defendant, that it had a good defense to the action as set forth in the affidavit of merits, that the witness could substantiate the allegations therein if he were present and that without his presence the defendant would be greatly prejudiced, did not set forth the particular facts to which such witness would testify if present at the trial, and did not show diligence on the part of the defendant to procure the attendance of such witness.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Fry, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 10, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the First National Bank of Allegan, Michigan, plaintiff, against the Chicago Sanitary Bag Company, a corporation, defendant. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nBenjamin P. Ruekberg, for plaintiff in error.\nMusgrave, Oppenheim & Lee, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0507-01",
  "first_page_order": 549,
  "last_page_order": 550
}