{
  "id": 5408449,
  "name": "Paul E. Gierz, Appellee, v. John Rus and Peter Soukup, Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gierz v. Rus",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-18",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,042",
  "first_page": "375",
  "last_page": "376",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 375"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 2266,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "sha256": "3abc800685e8420d28ee85ce9d04333560bee7d16035e21bd213c86d67a3a3d1",
    "simhash": "1:4773e9b11adbaa0d",
    "word_count": 400
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Paul E. Gierz, Appellee, v. John Rus and Peter Soukup, Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Appeal and error\u2014when proper judgment cannot he entered on appeal in action on appeal hand. Where the evidence was not preserved in the record by bill of exceptions, held that there was no way of ascertaining the amount of damages, in an action to recover on an appeal bond, and proper judgment could not be entered on an appeal.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward J. Herdlicka, for appellants.",
      "Edward J. Green, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Paul E. Gierz, Appellee, v. John Rus and Peter Soukup, Appellants.\nGen. No. 22,042.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Judgment, \u00a7 252*\u2014what amendments may he made after term. After the expiration of the term at which a judgment has been entered it can he amended only in matters of form.\n2. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1887*\u2014what are requisites of judgment in action on appeal hond. In an action of debt on an appeal bond, the judgment should specify the amount of the debt and damages and should be rendered for the debt to be satisfied upon payment of the damages.\n3. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1887 \u2014what amendment to judgment on appeal hond may not he made after term. In an action of debt on an appeal bond where judgment was entered upon a finding for the plaintiff and assessment of damages in a certain sum, and after expiration of the term at which the judgment was entered and approval and filing of an appeal bond , the court, on motion, entered a judgment purporting to correct the former judgment in form for incorrect transcription thereof hy the clerk of the court, and finding amount of debt and of damages and adjudging recovery of such debt and damages, with costs, held that such amendment was one of substance and not of form and the court was without power to make same.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Samuel C. Slough, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 18, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Paul E. Gierz, plaintiff, against John Bus and Peter Soukup, defendants, to recover on an appeal bond. From a judgment for plaintiff for $1,000 damages, defendants appeal.\nEdward J. Herdlicka, for appellants.\nEdward J. Green, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0375-01",
  "first_page_order": 403,
  "last_page_order": 404
}