{
  "id": 5165564,
  "name": "Roland A. Crandall v. Henry M. Birge et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crandall v. Birge",
  "decision_date": "1895-12-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "234",
  "last_page": "236",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 234"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill. App. 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2655596
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/84/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5410818
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/127/0332-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 4332,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.484,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5221273518263034
    },
    "sha256": "667f21399812d83c965824af3f639b968be4116381880b1a4925c3caf19e6832",
    "simhash": "1:d94725a31b6ab6ad",
    "word_count": 765
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:02.966731+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Roland A. Crandall v. Henry M. Birge et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe June term, 1894, of the Circuit Court, began on the 18th, and. to that term the appellant was summoned, and a declaration filed, ten days before the term, so that his plea was due at that term, and as he did not plead, judgment ivas properly taken against him by default, on the 20th. Of all this there is no complaint.\nOn the 16th, the appellees filed an affidavit for an attachment in aid, and an attachment writ was issued and served on that day upon several garnishees, of whom Susan Bugas was not one, though she afterward answered interrogatories addressed generally \u201c to the garnishees summoned,\u201d on which answer judgment against her was entered.\nOn the 28th of June, long before Susan Bugas ansivered, the appellant filed a plea denying the affidavit, upon which no issue was taken, nor was it otherwise disposed of, unless by operation of law, as the appellees contend.\nIt is part of the loose practice of this State that a party in court must watch the proceedings and take notice of all that is going in his case, and therefore that no notice of an attachment in aid need be given to him. Bailey v. Valley Nat. Bk., 127 Ill. 332.\nThere is neither statute nor decision which determines when a defendant shall plead to an attachment in aid. In the nature of things he may plead. The statute says that such proceedings shall \u201c be as are required or permitted in original attachment, as near as may be.\u201d Sec. 31, Ch. 11, Attachments.\nIn original attachments the practice and pleadings \u201c shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice and pleadings in other suits at law.\u201d Sec. 26. By section 27, the defendant may, by plea, traverse the facts stated in the affidavit. By the practice act\u2014as the result of several provisions too long to quote, but well understood by the profession\u2014the defendant need not plead in ordinary actions, until a term at which he has been served, and a declaration filed, not less than ten days before the beginning of the term.\nVow, \u201cas near as may be\u201d to that practice gives the defendant in an original attachment time to plead to the affidavit until a term beginning not less than ten days after he is served with the attachment; and \u201c as near as may be \u201d to that practice is that the defendant shall not be required to plead to the affidavit for an attachment in aid until a term beginning not less than ten days after the attachment in aid \u2014which need not be served upon him, was sued out. The plea here was before such a term had begun-\u2014was therefore in time\u2014the appellant was entitled to a trial upon it, and had the issue tendered by it been found for the appellant, the garnishees would have been- discharged.\nThe judgment taken against Susan Dugas was irregular and wrongs the appellant; it is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.\nThese views are consistent with the course pursued in Schulenberg v. Farwell, 84 Ill. 400, and with what is there said by the Supreme Court, until they reach the topic of discontinuance or abandonment\u2014a question not in that case nor in this.\nIn Rutledge v. Stribling, 26 Ill. App. 354, it does not appear that the attention of the court was called to the time at which the affidavit was filed, or when a plea thereto was due, but only to the question whether the writ in aid should have been served upon the defendant. Beversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Weigley & Eastman, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Chatty, MacLaren, Jarvis & Cleveland, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Roland A. Crandall v. Henry M. Birge et al.\n*1. Attachment in Aid\u2014Judgments Against Garnishees Before Issues Disposed of, are Irregular.\u2014Where an affidavit for an attachment in aid is traversed by a plea in denial, the defendant is entitled to a trial upon the issue so formed, and a judgment taken against persons summoned as garnishees before the issue is disposed of, is irregular.\n2. Same\u2014When Defendant Required to Plead.\u2014A defendant is not required to plead to the affidavit for an attachment in aid, until a term of the court commencing not less than ten days after the attachment is sued out.\nAttachment in Aid.\u2014Garnishee proceedings. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Erank Baker, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nBeversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 12, 1895.\nWeigley & Eastman, attorneys for appellant.\nChatty, MacLaren, Jarvis & Cleveland, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0234-01",
  "first_page_order": 232,
  "last_page_order": 234
}