{
  "id": 5096529,
  "name": "Roseland Manufacturing Co. v. Theodore Arcan",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roseland Manufacturing Co. v. Arcan",
  "decision_date": "1894-11-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "336",
  "last_page": "337",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 Ill. App. 336"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. 199",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2610150
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/63/0199-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 139,
    "char_count": 1706,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8850592856314158e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7282123397927833
    },
    "sha256": "5140eca50ee654b2faf7f456a82abfe849de7b911767f3a6f61c4028827b2a76",
    "simhash": "1:0d7a72e0ccdf3760",
    "word_count": 298
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:31.699098+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Roseland Manufacturing Co. v. Theodore Arcan."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe declaration in assumpsit in this cause supported by an affidavit of claim, ivas filed at the March term, 1894, of the Superior Court, and service of summons ivas had to the May term thereafter.\nWhat should have been a plea, but was in form, something like an answer in chancery verified, was filed at the May term, but there was no affidavit of merits. On one of the days of the May term, the so-called answer was stricken from the files and default and judgment entered upon the plaintif\u00fc\u2019s demand.\nAt the June term next following, the order of default and judgment entered at the preceding term ivas vacated, and leave Avas given the defendant to amend his pleaAATithin ten days, from which last named order this appeal was prayed and allowed.\nNow, in this court, a motion to dismiss the appeal is made, and must be allowed upon the authority of Walker v. Oliver, 63 Ill. 199. It was there held that an order setting aside a judgment entered at a term subsequent to the judgment, was not a final judgment, from which an appeal or Avrit of error will lie.\nThe appeal will be dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Burnham & Baldwin, attorneys for appellant.",
      "C. Porter Johnson, attorney for .appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Roseland Manufacturing Co. v. Theodore Arcan.\n1. FINAL Order\u2014Order Setting Aside a Judgment is Not, When.\u2014 An order setting aside a judgment entered at a term subsequent to the judgment is not a final judgment from which an appeal or writ of error will lie.\nMemorandum.\u2014Appeal from an order vacating a judgment, entered by the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. James G-oggin, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and dismissed.\nBurnham & Baldwin, attorneys for appellant.\nC. Porter Johnson, attorney for .appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0336-01",
  "first_page_order": 332,
  "last_page_order": 333
}