{
  "id": 5402267,
  "name": "Weber Chimney Company, Appellant, v. Claude A. Johnson, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Weber Chimney Co. v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,842",
  "first_page": "348",
  "last_page": "349",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 348"
    }
  ],
  "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": 2126,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.582,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.594203391136844e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48970190926189133
    },
    "sha256": "1ff9c1ce23d69f603d5c3f1f01d68fec76ba48985531fd3f3a4d550aeacdf5f7",
    "simhash": "1:90f4d9c2b81d43c8",
    "word_count": 344
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Weber Chimney Company, Appellant, v. Claude A. Johnson, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court,\n2. Attachment, \u00a7 3*\u2014when act construed strictly. An attachment is an extraordinary remedy, and the act is strictly construed against the party seeking to enforce its drastic provisions.\n3. Attachment\u2014when grounds of must be strictly proven. There are no presumptions in favor of plaintiffs in attachment suits; the grounds of attachment must be strictly proven.\n4. Attachment\u2014residence as question of fact. The question of residence in an attachment suit is one of fact.\n5. Domicile, \u00a7 4*\u2014what considered in determining residence. The question of residence is largely a matter of intent.\n6. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1500 \u2014when exactitude in rulings of court are not imperative. Where the merits of the controversy are strongly in favor of the defendant, exactitude in the rulings of the court in procedure or on instructions are not imperative.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frederic Burnham, for appellant.",
      "Rankin, Howard & Donnelly, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Weber Chimney Company, Appellant, v. Claude A. Johnson, Appellee.\nGen. No. 22,842.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Attachment, \u00a7 14 \u2014when evidence is sufficient to establish residence within State. Evidence held sufficient to establish defendant\u2019s residence within the State, in an action in attachment against defendant as a nonresident debtor, where it appeared that defendant was a traveling man, absent from the State most of the time, but had rented a room in a house in a city within the State, carried a key and occupied the room when in the city.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Lockwood Honobe, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction of attachment by the Weber Chimney Company, plaintiff, against Claude A. Johnson, defendant, as a nonresident debtor. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.\nFrederic Burnham, for appellant.\nRankin, Howard & Donnelly, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vots. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0348-01",
  "first_page_order": 376,
  "last_page_order": 377
}