{
  "id": 5820416,
  "name": "Joseph F. Griswold, Defendant in Error, v. H. Paulman & Company and James W. Dunlap. James W. Dunlap, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Griswold v. H. Paulman & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-03-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,537",
  "first_page": "45",
  "last_page": "46",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 45"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2899,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "sha256": "b622fd38ae23acfe8c175e768977b23e3fd1e93b70a95b1c367a18d9117734d6",
    "simhash": "1:737bcdf5d92b90c4",
    "word_count": 478
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph F. Griswold, Defendant in Error, v. H. Paulman & Company and James W. Dunlap. James W. Dunlap, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mb. Pbesiding Justice Taylob\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mb. Pbesiding Justice Taylob"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William A. Jennings, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Haight, Brown, Haight & Harris, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph F. Griswold, Defendant in Error, v. H. Paulman & Company and James W. Dunlap. James W. Dunlap, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 23,537.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Chables A. Williams, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 13, 1918.\nRehearing denied March 25, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Joseph F. Griswold, plaintiff, against H. Paulman & Company, a corporation, and James W. Dunlap, defendants, to recover for a breach of contract in the sale of an automobile. From a judgment for plaintiff for $550, on trial by the court without a jury, against defendant Dunlap, the case being dismissed as to the other defendant on plaintiff\u2019s motion, defendant Dunlap brings error.\nBoth defendants were served with summons. Defendant Dunlap defaulted for want of appearance, and seven months after judgment filed, a motion to vacate same, which was overruled.\nWilliam A. Jennings, for plaintiff in error.\nHaight, Brown, Haight & Harris, for defendant in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Court op Chicago, \u00a7 13 \u2014when statement of claim sufficient after judgment. A statement of claim in an action for breach of contract in the sale of an automobile was sufficient after judgment entered where it set up an express oral warranty by defendants to plaintiff of a certain automobile purchased by plaintiff of defendants that it was a certain model in first-class condition, that it was not such model nor in such condition, that it had certain defects, -that plaintiff expended a certain amount for repairs, and that it was wholly worthless.\n2. Municipal Court op Chicago, \u00a7 13*\u2014when use of word defendant in plural in statement of claim without amendment not error. The fact that the word defendant appeared in the plural in a statement of claim, in an action against two defendants, did not prevent the trial judge from properly concluding that the statement of claim without amendment would support a judgment against one defendant after his default where the other defendant was dismissed out of the case.\n3. Municipal Court op Chicago, \u00a7 13*\u2014what constitutes sufficient Verification of statement of claim. An affidavit, attached to a statement of claim, reciting that the cause is an action upon contract for the payment of money, and that the nature of plaintiff\u2019s demand is upon a contract \u201cas above stated,\u201d constituted a sufficient verification to comply with rule 16 of the Municipal Court, requiring a plaintiff to file with his statement of claim an affidavit sworn to by him stating he has knowledge of the facts, showing the nature of his demand or verifying the statement of claim.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0045-01",
  "first_page_order": 71,
  "last_page_order": 72
}
