{
  "id": 4964209,
  "name": "Arthur Hellstrom, Appellant, v. James McCollum, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hellstrom v. McCollum",
  "decision_date": "1944-12-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 42,805",
  "first_page": "385",
  "last_page": "387",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "324 Ill. App. 385"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 392",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2857173
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/187/0392-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 Ill. App. 418",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3375209
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/243/0418-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 212,
    "char_count": 2930,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3069991725386306
    },
    "sha256": "5e8fbf2f572c41f6e2f5673bc13e23b199a29932acaf54b305c2da3d3a3f1374",
    "simhash": "1:5950f9ae9125fed4",
    "word_count": 471
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:50:43.082913+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Arthur Hellstrom, Appellant, v. James McCollum, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Kiley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal by Plaintiff Hellstrom from a judgment \u201cas in the case of nonsuit\u201d for Defendant McCollum upon the latter\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nPlaintiff sued December 24, 1942 for damages to Ms automobile. McCollum filed Ms motion to dismiss, both parties through their attorneys filed counter affidavits and, after judgment, Hellstrom filed a motion, and affidavit, to vacate the judgment. From these pleadings it appears that on March 28, 1941 McCollum filed suit for damages to his car arising out of the same accident; that after McCollum\u2019s deposition was taken and Hellstrom\u2019s appearance and answer filed, the suit was compromised; and that a stipulation to dismiss was filed by the parties through their attorneys, and on November 7, 1941, the suit was dismissed pursuant to the stipulation. As a result of the compromise Mc-Collum received $125 and executed a release.\nThe motion to dismiss was on the ground that the stipulation and dismissal in the prior case constituted a full and complete adjudication and an estoppel of record precluding Hellstrom\u2019s instant suit.\nThe question is whether the judgment dismissing McCollum\u2019s prior suit bars Hellstrom\u2019s instant suit.\nDismissal of a suit by agreement of the parties, making no decision on the merits, leaves the situation as' though no suit had ever been brought. 27 C. J. S. 197. There was no adjudication of any issues between Mc-Collum and Hellstrom. The court\u2019s judgment of dismissal in the prior case left the party resting upon their agreements. Whatever admissions are made or implied in the stipulation and release are proper for consideration by the court on a trial of the merits after issues are joined. There is no estoppel precluding plaintiff\u2019s action, for there was no prior adjudication. Lucas v. Schwarts. 243 Ill. App. 418. In Ruehl Bros. Brewing Co. v. Atlas Brewing Co., 187 Ill. App. 392, relied on by McCollum, circumstances there justified the court\u2019s finding that the prior litigation was terminated in favor of the party relying on the judgment of dismissal. Hnder the circumstances in the case before us, there could be no justification for any inference that the prior judgment of dismissal was a termination of McCollum\u2019s suit in his favor. This conclusion disposes of all questions necessarily involved in this appeal.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to deny the motion to dismiss and for further proceedings not inconsistent with the findings herein.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nBurke, P. J., and Lupe, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Kiley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Braun & Brodie, of Chicago, for appellant; William C. Clausen, of Chicago, of counsel.",
      "Donald J. Rizzio, of Chicago, for appellee; William Friedman, of Chicago, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Arthur Hellstrom, Appellant, v. James McCollum, Appellee.\nGen. No. 42,805.\nOpinion filed December 13, 1944.\nReleased for publication January 4, 1945.\nBraun & Brodie, of Chicago, for appellant; William C. Clausen, of Chicago, of counsel.\nDonald J. Rizzio, of Chicago, for appellee; William Friedman, of Chicago, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0385-01",
  "first_page_order": 407,
  "last_page_order": 409
}