{
  "id": 2949249,
  "name": "Samuel C. Pirie et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Ethel Horwich, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pirie v. Horwich",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-20",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,230",
  "first_page": "379",
  "last_page": "380",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 379"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 1999,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.521,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41029129497511246
    },
    "sha256": "5626dfae270c36a6cf6cdeb48b8595ab060d3d11e144cb4350452cd3301cc29a",
    "simhash": "1:5406dd22d403b1f4",
    "word_count": 323
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel C. Pirie et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Ethel Horwich, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Execution\u2014when order to appear in supplementary proceedings must be obeyed. Unless there is an entire absence of jurisdiction in commanding a judgment debtor to appear in supplemental proceedings, the order must be obeyed.\n2. Execution\u2014when judgment debtor may not obtain vacation of order directing supplemental proceedings against him. A judgment debtor cannot obtain a vacation of an order directing supplemental proceedings against him by showing that the judgment or execution was irregular or erroneous.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Martin J. Tergan, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel C. Pirie et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Ethel Horwich, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 22,230.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Patrick B. Elanagan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 20, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Samuel C. Pirie, John T. Pirie, Gordon L. Pirie, John W. Scott, Robert L. Scott, Frederick H. Scott, Andrew McLeish and Bruce McLeish, copartners, trading as Carson, Pirie, Scott & Company, plaintiffs, against Ethel Horwich, defendant. From an order discharging the defendant upon a citation under section 64 of the amended Municipal Court Act (J. & A. 3381), for examination concerning her property after return on an execution issued upon a judgment for the plaintiffs of no property found and no part satisfied, plaintiffs bring error.\nDefendant appeared at the time specified in the citation, but failed to appear at the times to which continuances for a hearing were taken. Order for a rule upon her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt was entered. At the hearing she appeared and objected to the legality of the supplemental proceedings for the reason that the bailiff had made no personal demand on her under the execution.\nMartin J. Tergan, for plaintiffs in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0379-01",
  "first_page_order": 405,
  "last_page_order": 406
}