{
  "id": 5408161,
  "name": "T. K. Cleveland, trading as Inter-State Produce Company, Appellee, v. M. H. Eichengreen, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cleveland v. Eichengreen",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,853",
  "first_page": "300",
  "last_page": "301",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 300"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 2861,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4123029952711529
    },
    "sha256": "c954bef72389da5626b2d6aa419cd11229da6c12012c83d29b751339931ca459",
    "simhash": "1:438356affc6be8a3",
    "word_count": 488
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "T. K. Cleveland, trading as Inter-State Produce Company, Appellee, v. M. H. Eichengreen, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Garnishment\u2014when garnishee is not entitled to retain money pending writ of error. A garnishee in an attachment action has no right after the attachment has been quashed, and an order discharging him as garnishee has been entered, to retain the money during the pendency of a writ of error where no supersedeas was allowed, and he was not a party to the writ of error, and no notice of its issuance had been served upon him, and the writ was never filed with the clerk of the court to which such writ issued.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 710 \u2014what is effect of supersedeas. A supersedeas suspends the efficacy of a judgment, but does not, like reversal, annul the judgment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank Schoenfeld, for appellant.",
      "Harford & Lightfoot, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "T. K. Cleveland, trading as Inter-State Produce Company, Appellee, v. M. H. Eichengreen, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,853.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Garnishment\u2014when garnishee is not entitled to retain funds. In an- action to recover money which the defendant had retained pending the decision of an attachment action against the plaintiff, in which the defendant was garnished, where the attachment was quashed and an order was entered discharging the garnishee, and although a certified copy of such order was served on the defendant, and the money demanded, he refused to turn it over, and, after such refusal, a writ of error was sued out in the attachment action, but it did not appear that the defendant was ever made a party to the supersedeas or that he ever received formal notice thereof, or that the writ was filed in the Municipal Court clerk\u2019s office, and defendant claimed that as the suit in question was begun after the said writ of error was sued out, the writ might be pleaded in abatement, held that, after the defendant had been discharged as garnishee and demand had been made upon him to return the money, he had no right to retain the funds in the expectation that the defeated party in the original case might sue out a writ of error.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by T. K. Cleveland, trading as Inter-State Produce Company, plaintiff, against M. H. Eichengreen, defendant, to recover the amount of funds retained by defendant after the quashing of an attachment by a third person of funds owed plaintiff by defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for $911.60, defendant appeals.\nThis controversy arose out of the attachment action, a decision in which was reached in Lepman & Heggie v. Inter-State Produce Co., ante, p. 270.\nFrank Schoenfeld, for appellant.\nHarford & Lightfoot, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0300-01",
  "first_page_order": 328,
  "last_page_order": 329
}