{
  "id": 5407464,
  "name": "Frank Hockings, Appellee, v. Thomas Westmoreland, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hockings v. Westmoreland",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,394",
  "first_page": "196",
  "last_page": "196",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 196"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1838,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.589,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4371973037810313
    },
    "sha256": "40980d9e324199faae532a021b1e5827b2e11246be935e7ae985c5118eb79263",
    "simhash": "1:4896dae7d80c9e3c",
    "word_count": 305
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank Hockings, Appellee, v. Thomas Westmoreland, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Carnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Carnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. W. Rausch, for appellant.",
      "F. H. Hayes, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank Hockings, Appellee, v. Thomas Westmoreland, Appellant.\nGen. No. 6,394.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Apbeal and error, \u00a7 1802 \u2014when case reversed and remanded. In an action where a default judgment was entered, a motion to vacate the judgment was denied and the prayer for appeal was in general terms, and on appeal it was contended that there was not sufficient evidence in the reebrd to sustain the judgment, and it appeared questionable whether the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment for any amount as damages, and a certain amount was included for taxes without any showing why the defendant should be liable therefor and interest was allowed without any contract to pay interest or any other fact entitling the plaintiff to interest being shown, held that because of the inclusion of the item of interest the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded.\n2. Judgment, \u00a7 124*\u2014what is effect of default. As a general rule a default admits the cause of action and the material traversable allegations of the declaration, although not the amount of damages, and hence the amount to be recovered is all plaintiff is required to prove or th\u00e9i defendant is permitted to controvert.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Grundy county; the Hon. Samuel C. Stough, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 19, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction in assumpsit by Frank Hoekings, plaintiff, against Thomas Westmoreland, defendant. From an order overruling a motion to set aside a judgment obtained by default, defendant appeals.\nJ. W. Rausch, for appellant.\nF. H. Hayes, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0196-01",
  "first_page_order": 224,
  "last_page_order": 224
}