{
  "id": 5155470,
  "name": "Siegel, Cooper & Co. v. Henry Schueck et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Siegel, Cooper & Co. v. Schueck",
  "decision_date": "1895-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "429",
  "last_page": "430",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 429"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5070802
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/44/0042-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill. App. 185",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4904255
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/19/0185-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5223606
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/44/0056-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 126,
    "char_count": 1371,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.476,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3336816161868897
    },
    "sha256": "f501e31344c1b05553591bd47d21cdafef0af9c4f3827c8e80a0fe63a757a5cd",
    "simhash": "1:83c750ef24affc8a",
    "word_count": 226
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:36.351146+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Siegel, Cooper & Co. v. Henry Schueck et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mb. Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the Coubt.\nThis appeal is from a judgment recovered in a garnishment proceeding against the appellant upon a certain alleged judgment against the appellees in favor of Edward A. Prior & Co.\nHowever gratifying it might be to discuss all the questions urged upon ns there is one vital error insisted upon by appellant to which we must, in the press of a large docket, confine ourselves.\nThe record is absolutely bare of any evidence of the alleged judgment upon which the garnishment purports to he founded. This is fatal. There must be a judgment upon which execution can issue against the judgment debtor. Gilcreest v. Savage, for use, etc., 44 Ill. 56; Pierce v. Wade, 19 Ill. App. 185; McNeill v. Donohue, 44 Ill. App. 42. The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mb. Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. Binswanger and Elmer E. Jackson, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Cratty Bros., MacLaren, Jarvis & Cleveland, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Siegel, Cooper & Co. v. Henry Schueck et al.\n1. Garnishment\u2014Necessity of a Judgment.\u2014In garnishment proceedings there must he a judgment upon which an execution can issue against the judgment debtor.\nGarnishment.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1805.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 31, 1895.\nA. Binswanger and Elmer E. Jackson, attorneys for appellant.\nCratty Bros., MacLaren, Jarvis & Cleveland, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0429-01",
  "first_page_order": 427,
  "last_page_order": 428
}