{
  "id": 2930924,
  "name": "E. F. McDonald & Company, Appellee, v. Drexel Motor Livery Company et al. On Appeal of W. J. Kalus",
  "name_abbreviation": "E. F. McDonald & Co. v. Drexel Motor Livery Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-07-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,046",
  "first_page": "125",
  "last_page": "126",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 125"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 2059,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "sha256": "9c28824951089e238336790a5e7f302131d42681fd905251753538126ec2f2e2",
    "simhash": "1:103d02a5402b107d",
    "word_count": 338
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. F. McDonald & Company, Appellee, v. Drexel Motor Livery Company et al. On Appeal of W. J. Kalus."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Replevin, \u00a7 123 \u2014 when evidence sufficient to sustain finding for plaintiff. Evidence, in an action of replevin, examined and held sufficient to support a finding for plaintiff.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William H. Fish, for appellants.",
      "Ninde, Potter & Rigby, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. F. McDonald & Company, Appellee, v. Drexel Motor Livery Company et al. On Appeal of W. J. Kalus.\nGen. No. 23,046.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 864 \u2014 when record not searched for matters not in abstract. The abstract is the pleading of the party, and the record will not be searched for any matter not appearing in the abstract.\n'2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1284* \u2014 when presumed that trial court decided that notes and mortgage were sufficient to give plaintiff in replevin possession. In an action of replevin, where plaintiff claims the right of possession by virtue of the \u201cinsecurity clause\u201d in a chattel mortgage given by one of the defendants upon the property taken under the writ, and neither the mortgage nor the notes secured by it appear in the record, it will he assumed that the trial court, which had the notes and mortgage before it, decided that they were sufficient to give plaintiff possession under the \u201cinsecurity clause.\u201d\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John Stelk, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1917.\nRehearing denied July 16, 1917.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction of replevin by E. F. McDonald & Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against the Drexel Motor Livery Company, a corporation, W. J. Kalus and John Doe, defendants. From a judgment finding the right to the replevined property in the plaintiff, defendant Kalus appeals.\nWilliam H. Fish, for appellants.\nNinde, Potter & Rigby, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0125-01",
  "first_page_order": 151,
  "last_page_order": 152
}