{
  "id": 5398523,
  "name": "Robinson & Company, Appellee, v. Andrew Marr. Appeal of Clay, Robinson & Company, Garnishees, Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Robinson & Co. v. Marr",
  "decision_date": "1917-05-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,039",
  "first_page": "12",
  "last_page": "14",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 Ill. App. 12"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "181 Ill. App. 605",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        880238
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/181/0605-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 Ill. App. 178",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2660199
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/145/0178-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 Ill. App. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2552409
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/112/0332-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 3212,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.565,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4131043933449402
    },
    "sha256": "18603112b8e24ea34b6f1ca09816c9ec3b3eb204339365b84f41028392bd997c",
    "simhash": "1:10de8c73505db368",
    "word_count": 524
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:33:48.967362+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robinson & Company, Appellee, v. Andrew Marr. Appeal of Clay, Robinson & Company, Garnishees, Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n6. Gabnishment, \u00a7 118 \u2014when garnishees may not complain of amount of judgment. Garnishees who, after the writ was served on them, paid the entire amount in their hands to defendant cannot complain that judgment was, entered against them for the amount due the garnisheeing creditor and not for the full amount originally due the judgment debtor.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George V. McIntyre, for appellant.",
      "Alden, Latham & Young, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robinson & Company, Appellee, v. Andrew Marr. Appeal of Clay, Robinson & Company, Garnishees, Appellants.\nGen. No. 22,039.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. John P. McGoortv, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 31, 1917.\nRehearing denied June 13, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction of garnishment by Robinson & Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Andrew Marr, defendant... From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,179.39, against Clay, Robinson & Company, garnishees^ the garnishees appeal. The case having been before the Appellate Court on three former occasions, the facts will be found in the opinions therein rendered, which are reported in 112 Ill. App. 332; 145 Ill. App. 178; 181 Ill. App. 605.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Garnishment, \u00a7 100 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show that money was property of judgment debtor. On appeal by a garnishee, evidence held sufficient to support, a finding that money in his hands was the property of the judgment debtor.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1733*\u2014when decision on former appeal as to admissibility of evidence controls. Evidence which,. on a former appeal, was held improperly excluded is properly admitted on a subsequent trial.\n3. Evidence, \u00a7 458*\u2014when answer in garnishment action is admissible on subsequent trial. On the first trial of an action the first answer of the garnishees was verified by one of the garnishees and stated that the money in the garnishee\u2019s hands belonged to the defendant. On the second trial, the answer of the garnishees was on information and belief, was verified by counsel for the garnishees and indicated that the money belonged to others than the defendant. Held, that on the second trial it was not error to admit the answer of the garnishees in the first trial in evidence.\n4. Garnishment, \u00a7 100*\u2014when testimony in deposition is properly excluded. Where the issue involved, is whether money in the hands of a garnishee is the property of defendant or of others, testimony in a deposition of defendant to the effect that the money did not belong to him but belonged to such others, is properly excluded.\n5. Garnishment, \u00a7 153*\u2014when persons interested in fund are concluded by default judgment. Where persons who garnishees claim are interested in money in their hands, which is alleged to be the property of defendant, are properly notified but enter no appearance and are defaulted the judgment concludes them.\nGeorge V. McIntyre, for appellant.\nAlden, Latham & Young, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV,' and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0012-01",
  "first_page_order": 56,
  "last_page_order": 58
}