{
  "id": 5112058,
  "name": "Dunderdale v. The Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dunderdale v. Westinghouse Electric Co.",
  "decision_date": "1894-01-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "407",
  "last_page": "409",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 407"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "31 Ill. 144",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        8499970
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/31/0144-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ill. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        443538
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/25/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        859939
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/37/0385-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Brad. 185",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Bradf.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill. App. 597",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5122103
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/50/0597-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 Ill. 144",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        8499970
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/31/0144-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ill. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        443538
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/25/0063-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 3694,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0449893792761777e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5518070744665037
    },
    "sha256": "193e9f36aea451bde5acd916e3946c1234aa11c02dccb02bb660e74ca08172a5",
    "simhash": "1:516b3f79e6b1b608",
    "word_count": 628
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:15.137575+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dunderdale v. The Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr: Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was a proceeding by way of garnishment, based upon a judgment against appellant, on which an execution was issued, and on the same day was, by order of the attorney of the plaintiff indorsed thereon, returned \u201c no property found and no part satisfied.\u201d\nWe regard the statute relative to the filing of creditors\u2019 bills and that concerning the issue of garnishee process upon the return of an execution \u201cBo property found,\u201d as so similar that the rule as to the return of execution in one case is to be applied to the other.\nWe have already held that the return of an execution, by order of plaintiff\u2019s attorney, unsatisfied, will not authorize the filing of a creditor\u2019s bill. Scheubert v. Honel, 50 Ill. App. 597.\nFollowing the principle of that case we can not sustain the garnishee proceeding instituted in this case, based as it was upon a return made in obedience to an order of the attorney of the plaintiff in the execution.\nIn Chanute et al. v. Martin, 25 Ill. 63, the court, in speaking of a garnishee proceeding based upon a return of \u201cNo property found,\u201d said: \u201c It was only intended to be allowed when there is no property subject to execution or when it can not be found by reasonable efforts of the officer and the plaintiff in execution.\u201d\nIn Mich. Central R. R. Co., Garnishee, v. Keohane, 31 Ill. 144, a return of an execution after demand made, \u201cNo part satisfied, by order of plaintiff\u2019s attorney,\u201d with the statutory affidavit, was held insufficient to warrant the issue of garnishee process.\nIn the present case it does not appear that any demand was ever made of the execution debtor or any effort had to find property.\nIt was immaterial whether the attention of the court was called to the nature of the return of the execution by motion or by an answer. It is the business of the garnishee to see that the proceedings are such that a judgment against him will be binding upon his creditor. Pierce v. Wade, 19 Brad. 185; Dennison v. Blumenthal, 37 Ill. App. 385.\nThe order of the Superior Court quashing the garnishee writ and discharging the garnishee is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr: Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant\u2019s Brief, F. J. Griffen, Attorney.",
      "Appellee's Brief, Weigley, Bulkley & Gray, Attorneys."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dunderdale v. The Westinghouse Electric, etc., Co.\n1. Execution\u2014 Return No Property Found\u2014 Creditor's Bills and Garnishee Process.\u2014The statute relative to the filing of creditors\u2019 bills and that concerning the issue of garnishee process upon the return of an execution \u201cNo property found,\u201d are so similar that the rule as to the return of execution in one case is to be applied to the other.\n2. Garnishee Proceedings\u2014Execution Returned by Order of Plaintiff.\u2014The return of an execution by order of the plaintiff\u2019s attorney, unsatisfied, will not sustain garnishee proceedings.\n3. Garnishee Proceedings\u2014Duty of Garnishee to See That Proceedings are Regular.\u2014It is the business of the garnishee to see that the proceedings are such that a judgment against him will be binding upon his creditor.\nMemorandum.\u2014Garnishment. Appeal from an order quashing a writ entered by the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Jonas Hutchinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October, term, 1893, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed January 11, 1894.\nThe statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nAppellant\u2019s Brief, F. J. Griffen, Attorney.\nThe statutory return of the sheriff \u201c Bo property found \u201d on fieri faeias, even though by direction of plaintiff\u2019s attorneys, is sufficient to base garnishment proceeding upon. Starr & Curtis, Chap. 62, Sec. 1.\nAppellee's Brief, Weigley, Bulkley & Gray, Attorneys.\nThe writ was properly quashed for want of jurisdiction. Chanute v. Martin, 25 Ill. 63; Mich. Cen. Ry. Co. v. Koehane, 31 Ill. 144."
  },
  "file_name": "0407-01",
  "first_page_order": 403,
  "last_page_order": 405
}