{
  "id": 2923876,
  "name": "Samuel Grossman, Defendant in Error, v. Abe Cohen, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grossman v. Cohen",
  "decision_date": "1917-07-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,001",
  "first_page": "156",
  "last_page": "157",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 156"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 2191,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.578,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.621887471290392e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2896749964959347
    },
    "sha256": "f16e82460cf01798f2c1c1d4a8669bd10dbc86d8bd4b2232b89e1fefe41c0f89",
    "simhash": "1:5471c664e1ae0a99",
    "word_count": 370
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel Grossman, Defendant in Error, v. Abe Cohen, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. F. Masterson, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Max M. Grossmah, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel Grossman, Defendant in Error, v. Abe Cohen, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 23,001.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction of debt on an appeal bond by Samuel Gross-man, plaintiff, against Abe' Cohen, defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,000, and $1,646 damages, the debt to be discharged upon the payment of damages, costs and interest, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 27 \u2014 what must be preserved by bill of exceptions. While, under section 38 of the Municipal Court Act (J. & A. K 3350), it is unnecessary that formal exceptions be taken, the party complaining is not relieved from the duty of preserving, by the bill of exceptions, orders of the court striking various affidavits of defense made against his objection.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1872* \u2014 what is effect of assignment of judgment on appeal bond. The assignment of the judgment which a statutory appeal bond was given to secure carries the bond with it.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1860* \u2014 what constitutes an affirmance of judgment within appeal bond. The dismissal of an appeal constitutes an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court within the provisions of an appeal bond.\n4. Damages, \u00a7 221* \u2014 when jury is unnecessary. It is not error for the court to assess damages in an action on an appeal bond, where no objection- is made thereto and no request is made to impanel a jury to assess damages before they are assessed by the court.\n5. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13* \u2014 when affidavits of defense are properly stricken from files. Affidavits of defense, in an action in the Municipal Court of Chicago, which present no allegations of facts but mere argument, or alternative statements, are properly stricken from the files.\nE. F. Masterson, for plaintiff in error.\nMax M. Grossmah, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0156-01",
  "first_page_order": 182,
  "last_page_order": 183
}