{
  "id": 859980,
  "name": "Gardner S. Chapin et al. v. Canute E. Matson, for use, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chapin v. Matson",
  "decision_date": "1890-10-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "257",
  "last_page": "258",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 257"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill. App. 324",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        863679
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/23/0324-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 1697,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.45201173043504e-07,
      "percentile": 0.655229513380896
    },
    "sha256": "33ec8d2469e8a96223af5cfd7f2ce8551ba16b225a6daf33584a837c4a8d166f",
    "simhash": "1:3667d5edc83cfdde",
    "word_count": 289
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:53:41.478670+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gardner S. Chapin et al. v. Canute E. Matson, for use, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Gary, J.\nThe appellee, sheriff of Cook county, sued the appellants for the use of Franklin Emery, upon a replevin bond given by the appellants, in a replevin, suit commenced by individuals composing the firm of Paris, Allen & Co., against Emery. None of the firm of Paris, Allen. & Co. were parties to the bond.\nThe appellants pleaded that the merits were not tried, in the replevin suit, and that the goods and chattels there in question were the \u201c property of these defendants.\u201d Whatever may have been the accident or mistake by which the appellants pleaded property in themselves, instead of in Paris, Allen & Co., as it must be supposed they intended to do, there the plea stood, and the case was tried upon an issue made on that allegation of \u201c property of these defendants.\u201d\nThere is no other question in the case which needs to be considered, for the appellee was entitled to recover the value of the property unless the appellants proved it was theirs. This they did not attempt to do, but offered evidence that it was the property of Paris, Allen & Co. This evidence being rejected, the appellee recovered.\nThere is no error and the judgment is affirmed. Holler v. Coleson, 23 Ill. App. 324.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gary, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Merritt Starr and L. S. Hodges, for appellants.",
      "Messrs. Kraus, Mater & Stein, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gardner S. Chapin et al. v. Canute E. Matson, for use, etc.\nReplevin\u2014Bond\u2014Action on.\nThis court affirms a judgment for the plaintiff in an action upon a replevin bond, the defendants not attempting to prove that the property in question belonged to them.\n[Opinion filed October 23, 1890.]\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Kirk Hawes, Judge, presiding. ,\nMessrs. Merritt Starr and L. S. Hodges, for appellants.\nMessrs. Kraus, Mater & Stein, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0257-01",
  "first_page_order": 255,
  "last_page_order": 256
}