{
  "id": 3092766,
  "name": "J. Eavenson & Sons, Appellant, v. William Adelson et al., Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "J. Eavenson & Sons v. Adelson",
  "decision_date": "1924-03-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 28,767",
  "first_page": "461",
  "last_page": "462",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "232 Ill. App. 461"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 216",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5371136
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/186/0216-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 Ill. 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3356400
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/217/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 636",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5816193
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/210/0636-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 612",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5405497
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/205/0612-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 Ill. 294",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4818637
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/271/0294-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 Ill. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4735733
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/260/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 Ill. 365",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4724405
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/258/0365-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. 199",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2610150
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/63/0199-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2517,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.088054361470495
    },
    "sha256": "2ecfc46fabe3872174ab102caafa5916058428c3fac7aa2ae6493c82707ab676",
    "simhash": "1:640bd305d8803cd0",
    "word_count": 435
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:26:39.446048+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. Eavenson & Sons, Appellant, v. William Adelson et al., Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nMarch 6, 1923, a judgment by default was entered against defendants in the municipal court. Upon motion made within thirty days, supported by affidavits, the court vacated and set aside said judgment. By this attempted appeal plaintiff seeks to have this order reversed.\nIt is the well-settled rule that such an order is not final and is not appealable. Where a defendant makes a motion to set aside a default and vacate a judgment in order to allow a defense, and such motion is denied, the denial of the motion is a final judgment which may be reviewed; but when such motion is allowed for the purpose of allowing the defendant to interpose a defense, such order is interlocutory and an appeal would not lie therefrom. Walker v. Oliver, 63 Ill. 199; City of Park Ridge v. Murphy, 258 Ill. 365; Cramer v. Illinois Commercial Men\u2019s Ass\u2019n, 260 Ill. 516; Bailey v. Conrad, 271 Ill. 294; Madden v. City of Chicago, 205 Ill. App. 612; Andrews & Co. v. Anchor Folding Box Mfg. Co., 210 Ill. App. 636.\nIt was said in Walker v. Oliver, supra: \u201cWhen the canse is again tried, and a final judgment entered, an appeal or writ of error will lie, on which it can he assigned as error setting aside this judgment. \u2019 \u2019\nIf the Appellate Court has no jurisdiction of the appeal it should dismiss it of its own motion, Chicago Portrait Co. v. Chicago Crayon Co., 217 Ill. 200, and if the Appellate Court should ignore the defect and decide the merits, if it should affirm the action of the trial court, the judgment of the Appellate Court would be treated as void by the Supreme Court. People v. Witzman, 186 Ill. App. 216.\nFor the reasons above stated this appeal is dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.\nMatchett, P. J., and Johnston, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown, Roe & Bye, for appellant.",
      "Goodrich, Vincent & Bradley, for appellees; Joseph M. Griffen, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. Eavenson & Sons, Appellant, v. William Adelson et al., Appellees.\nGen. No. 28,767.\nAppeal and ebror \u2014 appealability of order setting aside default. An order vacating and setting aside a judgment by default for the purpose of allowing the defendant to interpose a defense is not a final and appealable order and an appeal therefrom will he dismissed by Appellate Court of its own motion.\nAppeal by plaintiff from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Wells M. Cook, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1923.\nAppeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed March 10, 1924.\nBrown, Roe & Bye, for appellant.\nGoodrich, Vincent & Bradley, for appellees; Joseph M. Griffen, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0461-01",
  "first_page_order": 489,
  "last_page_order": 490
}