{
  "id": 3017448,
  "name": "Anton J. Cermak for use of James Moloney, Appellant, v. Cable Piano Company et al., Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cermak v. Cable Piano Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-05-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,577",
  "first_page": "219",
  "last_page": "220",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 219"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 2977,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35537535199928644
    },
    "sha256": "b8f6cbf7c81a93467ad9cd02f84bbcfe9ad7a03c2fcd64f852a436c7640cb2de",
    "simhash": "1:42fa400509202a80",
    "word_count": 506
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Anton J. Cermak for use of James Moloney, Appellant, v. Cable Piano Company et al., Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dever\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Replevin, \u00a7 206* \u2014 what is effect of affidavit as evidence. The statements in an affidavit filed in a replevin suit as to the value of the property are to be regarded as at least prima facie proof of the value of the property.\n5. Replevin, \u00a7 192* \u2014 when judgment not excessive in action on bond. In an action on a replevin bond, evidence held sufficient to warrant a judgment for plaintiff of $500, attorney\u2019s fees, interest and costs.\n6. Replevin, \u00a7 206* \u2014 what is effect of affidavit as to value of property. A witness signing an affidavit filed in a replevin suit as to the value of the property may not by testimony qualify or modify his statements made therein.\n7. Replevin, \u00a7 190* \u2014 when interest allowed in action on hond. In an action on a replevin bond, interest should be allowed from the time of the taking of the property under the replevin writ to the date of judgment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dever"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fred A. Rathje, for appellant.",
      "Walter S. Sommers and Lawrence A. Cohen, for appellees; Charles T. Farson and Guyon T. Fisher, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Anton J. Cermak for use of James Moloney, Appellant, v. Cable Piano Company et al., Appellees.\nGen. No. 23,577.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Chattel mortgages, \u00a7 151 \u2014 when right of possession under second mortgage may not be questioned. Where a second chattel mortgagee takes possession under a mortgage valid upon its face, the right to possession of the property cannot he questioned by one claiming under the prior mortgage, invalid on its face.\n2. Chatter, mortgages \u2014 when lack of formality in execution is immaterial. Where a second chattel mortgagee is in possession of the property upon default and the legal title has vested in him, it is immaterial whether the chattel mortgage under which he got possession was executed with all the formalities of law.\n3. Replevin, \u00a7 203* \u2014 when burden of proof is not on plaintiff. In an action by a second chattel mortgagee on the replevin bond of the first mortgagee, given to obtain possession of the property, which was in possession of the second mortgagee after default, it was not incumbent upon plaintiff, in the first instance, to show that in the execution of the. mortgage the corporation mortgagor had complied with all the requirements of the law, even though the execution of the instrument had not been directly authorized by members of the corporation.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nReversed and judgment here.\nOpinion filed May 13, 1918.\nRehearing denied May 27, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Anton J. Cermak, for use of James Moloney, plaintiff, against Cable Piano Company, a corporation, and others, defendants, upon a replevin bond. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.\nFred A. Rathje, for appellant.\nWalter S. Sommers and Lawrence A. Cohen, for appellees; Charles T. Farson and Guyon T. Fisher, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0219-01",
  "first_page_order": 273,
  "last_page_order": 274
}
