{
  "id": 2921336,
  "name": "Louis H. Mahnke, Jr., Administrator, Appellee, v. P. J. Harmon, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mahnke v. Harmon",
  "decision_date": "1917-10-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,119",
  "first_page": "153",
  "last_page": "154",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ill. App. 153"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1945,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.582,
    "sha256": "d009729ed88ba33fb51394f5e709fe494477641a0a2340c2003dc6b8716ed730",
    "simhash": "1:7f16ff02da2e9875",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:32.195438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Louis H. Mahnke, Jr., Administrator, Appellee, v. P. J. Harmon, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of- the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McMahon & Graber, for appellant.",
      "J. Walter Stead, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Louis H. Mahnke, Jr., Administrator, Appellee, v. P. J. Harmon, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,119.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 31, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Louis H. Mahnke, Jr., administrator of the estate of Louis H. Mahnke, deceased, plaintiff, against P. J. Hannon, defendant, on a promissory note. There was judgment for plaintiff, entered by confession, for $1,556.83, which defendant moved to vacate. From the order denying the motion to vacate, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Judgment, \u00a7 88 ,\u2014what question considered on appeal from order denying motion to vacate judgment 5y confession. On appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment entered by confession, the only question to be considered is whether the affidavit submitted in support of the motion set up a prima facie defense.\n2. Judgment, \u00a7 82*\u2014when affidavit in support of motion to vacate judgment 6y confession on promissory note presents defense. An affidavit in support of a motion to vacate a judgment entered by confession on a promissory note which avers that affiant is and was discount teller of a bank of which defendant was president and that the note was without consideration and was given by defendant to procure the payment by plaintiff\u2019s intestate of a loan made by the bank to the latter through defendant\u2019s procurement, and that such loan had never been paid by plaintiff\u2019s intestate, who had also \u25a0 never requested that the note be paid, is sufficient to establish a prima facie defense to the note.\nMcMahon & Graber, for appellant.\nJ. Walter Stead, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0153-01",
  "first_page_order": 177,
  "last_page_order": 178
}