{
  "id": 2924170,
  "name": "J. J. Heffernan for use of Rittenhouse & Embree Company, Appellee, v. Breen & Kennedy, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Heffernan ex rel. Rittenhouse & Embree Co. v. Breen & Kennedy",
  "decision_date": "1917-10-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,101",
  "first_page": "344",
  "last_page": "345",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 344"
    }
  ],
  "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": 2057,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.592,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.64245052257338e-08,
      "percentile": 0.451394270476773
    },
    "sha256": "60b32859f9bd40d30eb32c3dcba1c466f245ab0310c1d6f17aa0fcee00d64ec9",
    "simhash": "1:0a234d29590ca298",
    "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": [
      "J. J. Heffernan for use of Rittenhouse & Embree Company, Appellee, v. Breen & Kennedy, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Gabnishment, \u00a7 63 \u2014 what is duty of garnishee as to holding funds. It is the duty of the garnishee, pending the outcome of garnishment proceedings, to hold the difference between funds in its hands and an overdraft of the debtor.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John J. Kelly, for appellant; Frank Hall Stephens, of counsel.",
      "Adams, Crews, Bobb & Westcott, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. J. Heffernan for use of Rittenhouse & Embree Company, Appellee, v. Breen & Kennedy, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,101.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Garnishment, \u00a7 100 \u2014 when evidence sufficient to establish judgment. In an action of garnishment, the judgment on which the garnishment proceedings are based is established where an execution evidencing a return by the bailiff \u201cno part paid and no part satisfied\u201d is introduced in evidence, and. existence of the judgment is admitted by an officer of the defendant.\n2. Garnishment, \u00a7 26* \u2014 what debts should be disclosed in answer of garnishee. Under section 5 of the statute on garnishment (J. & A. If 5940), relating to disclosure of debts by the garnishee in answer to interrogatories, a debt owing and due at the date of service, and a debt owing at the date of service which becomes due thereafter, and a debt owing and due at any time after the service of the writ, up to the date of the answer, are included.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John Richardson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.\nAffirmed on remittitur; otherwise reversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 2, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction of garnishment by J. J. Heffernan for the nse of Rittenhouse & Embree Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Breen & Kennedy, a corporation, defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for $383.52, defendant appeals.\nJohn J. Kelly, for appellant; Frank Hall Stephens, of counsel.\nAdams, Crews, Bobb & Westcott, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, game topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0344-01",
  "first_page_order": 370,
  "last_page_order": 371
}