{
  "id": 858510,
  "name": "Patrick R. Bannon & Margaret Bannon v. Joseph Pfleger",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bannon v. Pfleger",
  "decision_date": "1894-05-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "309",
  "last_page": "310",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 Ill. App. 309"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2156,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "sha256": "533eebd07ebcbeba0623affd04f9af5de3caa0591473e56ee1014d4bfab9fa7d",
    "simhash": "1:0cff9e21854abe65",
    "word_count": 364
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:00.879097+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Patrick R. Bannon & Margaret Bannon v. Joseph Pfleger."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Harker\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe defendant in error brought an action for breach of the covenants of a statutory warranty deed executed by plaintiffs in error to him. There was due service of summons, but no defense was interposed. On default, the court heard evidence, assessed damages at $19.30, and rendered judgment accordingly.\nIt is contended that the judgment should be reversed because, first, the declaration does not state a cause of action; second, Margaret Bannon having joined in the deed as the wife of Patrick B. Bannon merely, is not personally liable upon the covenants contained therein.\nThe averments in the declaration as they appear in the record filed in this court, are awkwardly connected, and hardly intelligible. A copy of the deed, designed as \u201c Exhibit A,\u201d appears in the body of the declaration, right in the middle of the averment as to the breach. As read in the record the declaration is confusing and senseless. It is apparent to us, however, that the confusion is occasioned by the improper folding of the original declaration, and that the pleader did not set out the deed in the body of the declaration, but attached it thereto as an exhibit. With the deed appearing as an attached exhibit, the declaration sufficiently states a cause of action.\nTo the second point urged, it may be said that it does not appear that the only purpose-of Margaret Bannon in joining in the deed was to enable her husband to pass the title free from her inchoate right of dower. For aught that appears in this record she warranted the title. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Harker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Haley & O\u2019Donnell, attorneys for plaintiffs in error.",
      "J. W. D\u2019Arcy, attorney for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Patrick R. Bannon & Margaret Bannon v. Joseph Pfleger.\n1. Husband and Wipe\u2014Joint Action.\u2014A party claiming to be improperly joined as a defendant in a suit, has the burden of showing the improper joinder.\nMemorandum.\u2014Action of covenant. Error to the Circuit Court of Will County; the Hon. Dorrance Dibell, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the December term, 1893, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed May 22, 1894.\nThe opinion states the case.\nHaley & O\u2019Donnell, attorneys for plaintiffs in error.\nJ. W. D\u2019Arcy, attorney for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0309-01",
  "first_page_order": 305,
  "last_page_order": 306
}