{
  "id": 2924622,
  "name": "Sheppard-Strassheim Company, Appellee, v. George Nickas et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sheppard-Strassheim Co. v. Nickas",
  "decision_date": "1917-10-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,915",
  "first_page": "370",
  "last_page": "371",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 370"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "166 Ill. 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5497509
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/166/0577-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 Ill. App. 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5388641
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/188/0609-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. App., 184",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5204925
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/69/0184-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 Ill. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4828869
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/272/0161-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 203,
    "char_count": 3128,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.585,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43705829953792674
    },
    "sha256": "1cef6b280de38e31ad597b35c02c6535e912edd08d1e16fab3d1c1e2336498c6",
    "simhash": "1:94486168d3080070",
    "word_count": 528
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sheppard-Strassheim Company, Appellee, v. George Nickas et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nInasmuch as this record contains no order of court approving the bond, or authorizing the clerk to approve it, such as must be entered under either section 92 or 93 of the Practice Act (J. & A. 8629, 8630), which applies to appeals from the Municipal Court of Chicago as well as from other courts of record (Israelstam, v. United States Casualty Co., 272 Ill. 161), the appeal was not perfected, and must, in accordance with settled practice, be dismissed. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Hedrick, 69 Ill. App., 184, and cases cited.\nBut were the appeal properly perfected we could not consider the only point made, namely, that the affidavit of defense was erroneously stricken and judgment entered by default, because the motion and decision of the court thereon are not preserved in the bill of exceptions, thus not enabling us to determine the ground of the court\u2019s action, which otherwise is presumptively correct. (Jones v. Roberts, 188 Ill. App. 609; Gaynor v. Hibernia Sav. Bank, 166 Ill. 577, and cases cited.)\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph Rosenberg, for appellants; Benjamin Rosenberg, of counsel.",
      "Webster & Sherrard, for appellee; Daniel Webster and Arthur A. Sherrard, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sheppard-Strassheim Company, Appellee, v. George Nickas et al., Appellants.\nGen. No. 22,915.\n1. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, \u00a7 25 \u2014 applicability of provisions of Practice Act relating to approval of appeal bond to appeals from. The provisions of sections 92 and 93 of the Practice Act (J. & A. 1111 8629, 8630), relative to the approval of an appeal bond by order of court, or order authorizing the clerk to approve it, applies to appeals from the Municipal Court of Chicago as well as from other courts of record.\n2. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, \u00a7 25* \u2014 when appeal from not perfected. An appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago is not perfected where there is no order of court approving an appeal bond, or authorizing the clerk to approve it, as is required by the Practice Act, sees. 92 and 93 (J. & A. || 8629, 8630).\n3. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, \u00a7 25* \u2014 when appeal must be dismissed. Where an appeal is not perfected owing to the fact that there is no approval of an appeal bond by order of court, nor any order authorizing the clerk to approve it, as required by the Practice Act, secs. 92, 93 (J. & A. HI 8629, 8630), the appeal must be dismissed.\n4. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, \u00a7 27* \u2014 when presumed that action of court in striking affidavit of defense and entering judgment by default is correct. It must be. presumed on appeal from the Municipal Court' of Chicago that the court\u2019s actiori in striking an affidavit of defense and entering judgment by default was correct where the motion and decision of the court thereon are not preserved in the bill of exceptions.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. WIlliam N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.\nAppeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1917.\nJoseph Rosenberg, for appellants; Benjamin Rosenberg, of counsel.\nWebster & Sherrard, for appellee; Daniel Webster and Arthur A. Sherrard, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0370-01",
  "first_page_order": 396,
  "last_page_order": 397
}