{
  "id": 5095446,
  "name": "Jacob Kuhn, Joseph Smart and Charles Bacharach v. The Imperial Building Company, for the use of George Cook",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kuhn v. Imperial Building Co.",
  "decision_date": "1894-11-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "309",
  "last_page": "310",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 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": [
    {
      "cite": "25 Ill. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        443538
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/25/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 Ill. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5427138
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/133/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill. App. 246",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5006485
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/35/0246-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. App. 344",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4990053
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/33/0344-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ill. App. 279",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5146213
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/46/0279-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2121,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.155292065290293
    },
    "sha256": "e62d76e94d58c5ea586c1ba65bb76f43326b3039c17b2d8e7c56224a11f10ac5",
    "simhash": "1:f80c4adfbe3eb0ec",
    "word_count": 355
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:31.699098+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jacob Kuhn, Joseph Smart and Charles Bacharach v. The Imperial Building Company, for the use of George Cook."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThese are appeals by several garnishees summoned under the provisions of Sec. 1, Ch. 62, Garnishment, upon the judgment from which a writ of error ivas prosecuted in Imperial Bldg. Co. v. Cook, 46 Ill. App. 279.\nOur decision there, reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court, has been reversed by the Supreme Court at the October term, 1894, and therefore there is now no place for the application of the doctrine that where there is one judgment dependent upon another, the reversal of the principal judgment reverses both. Cohen v. Smith, 33 Ill. App. 344; Alling v. Wenzall, 35 Ill. App. 246; S. C., 133 Ill. 264.\nThe only question now is whether the Building Company had property which the sheriff ought to have levied upon; that is, whether the garnishee process is, in this case, an abuse under the doctrine of Chanute v. Martin, 25 Ill. 63. The burden of showing the facts constituting an abuse was upon the garnishees, and they did not try to prove that there was any property on which the sheriff could have levied.\nThe case shows a good deal of general understanding that the building company had a valuable leasehold largely incumbered, but no proof of it.\nThe hope of the building company, in whose interest these appeals seem to be prosecuted, was, no doubt, that our error in the other case, would be perpetuated by the Supreme Court.\nThat hope failing, the judgments against the garnishees, here appealed from, are affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ullmann & Hacker, attorneys for appellants.",
      "R. W. Morrison and. Max Robinson, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jacob Kuhn, Joseph Smart and Charles Bacharach v. The Imperial Building Company, for the use of George Cook.\n1. Judgment\u2014Dependent upon Another\u2014Reversal.\u2014Where there is one judgment dependent upon another, the reversal of the principal judgment reverses both.\nMemorandum.\u2014Garnishment. In the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Trial by the court; finding for plaintiff; appeal by defendant. Heard in this court at the March term, 1894, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed November 12, 1894.\nUllmann & Hacker, attorneys for appellants.\nR. W. Morrison and. Max Robinson, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0309-01",
  "first_page_order": 305,
  "last_page_order": 306
}