{
  "id": 5403735,
  "name": "Leopold Mioduszewski, Appellee, v. Stefan Spoganitz, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mioduszewski v. Spoganitz",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,779",
  "first_page": "331",
  "last_page": "332",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 331"
    }
  ],
  "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": 2296,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "sha256": "a5dcad2e570eb16650bc85a8b662f6a58ae2742028e7c6efe4dd45103d5f913b",
    "simhash": "1:ba397095e04c069b",
    "word_count": 396
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Leopold Mioduszewski, Appellee, v. Stefan Spoganitz, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Me. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Me. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Maximilian J. St. George and B. F. Bartel, for appellant.",
      "Ferguson & Goodnow, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Leopold Mioduszewski, Appellee, v. Stefan Spoganitz, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,779.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from,the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Patrick B. Flanagan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAppeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Leopold Mioduszewski, plaintiff, against Stefan Spoganitz, defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nMaximilian J. St. George and B. F. Bartel, for appellant.\nFerguson & Goodnow, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1105*\u2014when motion to dismiss appeal is properly allowed. Motion to dismiss appeal for failure to have appeal bond and bill of exceptions approved within the time limited by the order allowing such appeal, held to be properly allowed.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 25*\u2014when bond and hill of exceptions are not filed in proper time. Where a judgment of the Municipal Court was entered June 27, 1916, and appeal was prayed and allowed upon filing appeal bond to be approved by a judge of the court within thirty days from the date of the judgment, and bill of exceptions within sixty days, and the time for filing the bond was extended July 22, 1916, ten days, and a bond was filed and approved August 5, 1916, and on August 25, 1916, was ordered stricken from the files, which order was vacated August 29, 1916, and order entered to file a new bond nunc pro tune as of August 25,1916, and a new bond was filed and approved August 30, 1916, and bill of exceptions September 27, 1916, held that neither the bond nor the bill of exceptions was filed within the time in which the court had jurisdiction to approve the same.\n3. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, \u00a7 25 \u2014when has no jurisdiction to approve appeal bond. The Municipal Court of Chicago has no jurisdiction to approve an appeal bond after the lapse of thirty days from the entry of the judgment.\n4. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 25*\u2014who should approve appeal hond. Under the Municipal Court Act an appeal bond should be approved by the judge, and an order of approval by the court is not required.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number,"
  },
  "file_name": "0331-01",
  "first_page_order": 359,
  "last_page_order": 360
}