{ "id": 3347244, "name": "Alexander St. Clair, Appellant, v. J. C. Goldie and Elenor Goldie, Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "St. Clair v. Goldie", "decision_date": "1927-05-17", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 31,447", "first_page": "357", "last_page": "359", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "244 Ill. App. 357" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "232 Ill. App. 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 3089733 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/232/0044-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 Ill. App. 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 3045899 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/224/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ill. App. 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5066962 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/44/0376-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Ill. App. 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4918961 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/22/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 Ill. 36", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2783455 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/106/0036-01" ] }, { "cite": "151 Ill. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5468543 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/151/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 Ill. 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5417649 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/131/0273-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 Ill. 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2773345 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/86/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Ill. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2577284 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/11/0622-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 241, "char_count": 2921, "ocr_confidence": 0.516, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.474152507693201e-07, "percentile": 0.6598311330120018 }, "sha256": "f7709de836896eca72f34f0384861cf72fdc352a75653153b2867955438a8475", "simhash": "1:87c996cf72256cf2", "word_count": 514 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:23:28.054403+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Alexander St. Clair, Appellant, v. J. C. Goldie and Elenor Goldie, Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAfter judgment by confession was entered on a promissory note, and an execution thereon was issued, an order was entered on defendants\u2019 motion staying further proceedings under the writ \u201cuntil the maturity date of the promissory note thereunder confessed, or until the further order of the court.\u201d Plaintiff prayed and perfected an appeal from that order and the point is made that the order is not final or appealable. The words \u201cor until the further order of the court\u201d imply that the order is merely temporary and interlocutory. (O\u2019Hara v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Grant [Pa.] 241.)\nThere is a bill of exceptions in the record, but there is nothing in it showing upon what ground the court entered the order staying the execution except a statement that the motion of the defendants was to stay the execution \u201cuntil the maturity date of said judgment note, namely, April 16, A. D. 1928.\u201d\nIn Raban v. Mahr, 244 Ill. App. post, we held, on the authority of Sherman v. Baddely, 11 Ill. 622, that where, as in this case, a note contains a warrant of attorney authorizing a confession of judgment \u201cat any time hereafter * * * for such amount as may appear to be unpaid thereon,\u201d the effect of that stipulation is to make the note due, \u201cfor the purposes of the judgment,\u201d whenever the creditor chooses to assert his right under the contract to enter judgment thereon, and having done so, the judgment creditor' is \u00e9ntitled to an execution. The same ruling was made in Adam v. Arnold, 86 Ill. 185; McDonald v. Chisholm, 131 Ill. 273; Farwell v. Huston, 151 Ill. 239; Thomas v. Mueller, 106 Ill. 36; Alldritt v. First Nat. Bank of Morrison, 22 Ill. App. 24 and 192; Elkins v. Wolfe, 44 Ill. App. 376; Great Western Hat Works v. Pride Hat Co., 224 Ill. App. 249; Bradshaw v. Hansen, 232 Ill. App. 44.\nIf the order appealed from had merely stayed the execution until the \u201cmaturity date\u201d of the note, it would have had no practical effect, for the note was then past due by the election of the judgment creditor, but the remainder of the order implies that either party may apply to the court for a further order. Hence, until some final order is entered, such as, for example, an order refusing to vacate the stay order, or an order denying a motion for an alias execution, upon the sole ground, in either case, that the debt is not due, or some similar order indicating a final disposition of the matter, the order remains interlocutory and is not appealable.\nFor the reasons stated, the appeal must be dismissed and it is so ordered.\nAppeal dismissed.\nGridley, P. J., and Barnes, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Fitch" } ], "attorneys": [ "Kenneth F. Simpson, for appellant.", "Ross Lee Laird, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Alexander St. Clair, Appellant, v. J. C. Goldie and Elenor Goldie, Appellees.\nGen. No. 31,447.\nHeard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1926.\nOpinion filed May 17, 1927.\nKenneth F. Simpson, for appellant.\nRoss Lee Laird, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0357-01", "first_page_order": 391, "last_page_order": 393 }