{
  "id": 869037,
  "name": "William Grace, Frank D. Hyde and August R. Meyer v. The Casey-Grimshaw Marble Company, for the use of E. A. Sherburne, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grace v. Casey-Grimshaw Marble Co.",
  "decision_date": "1896-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "149",
  "last_page": "151",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 149"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "129 Ill. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill. App. 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5055373
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/43/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5314552
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/82/0218-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. 358",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5247157
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/27/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill. App. 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4884898
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/15/0073-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 282,
    "char_count": 5025,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.8287106792841566e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8390002660386764
    },
    "sha256": "ad13746b919e89b0adb5622ff45279035c9a87164b77fb1f32157ab44fb9a4f9",
    "simhash": "1:1ee38d395032a48a",
    "word_count": 849
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:10:11.174453+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Grace, Frank D. Hyde and August R. Meyer v. The Casey-Grimshaw Marble Company, for the use of E. A. Sherburne, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nJudgment was entered against William Grace, a garnishee, without his appearance, or service of any kind upon him. He afterward appeared and asked to have this judgment set aside, which motion the court overruled.\nThe judgment against Grace was void for want of jurisdiction over him, had service previously been had upon him, and he failed to appear or answer; a conditional judgment should have preceded a final judgment against him. Sec. 3 of Chap. 62, R. S.; Carter v. Lockwood, 15 Ill. App. 73; Carriker v. Anderson, 27 Ill. 358.\nThe void judgment against Grace was not validated by his motion to set the same aside. As the judgment against Grace is improper and must be reversed, that against Hyde must be reversed. A judgment is in this State a unit, and if bad as to one, is as to all. Black on Judgments, Sec. 211; Williams v. Chalfant, 82 Ill. 218; see Cooper v. McNeil & Higgins Co., 43 Ill. App. 350; Claftin v. Dunn, 129 Ill. 248.\nThe interpleader claimed the fund in controversy by virtue of an assignment by the principal debtor; this assignment was only for the surplus money due or to become due after the making of certain payments. The interpleader should, therefore, have alleged that there was such surplus and the amount thereof. The demurrer to the interpleader was properly sustained.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. W. Becker and Dale & Francis, attorneys for appellants.",
      "E. A. Sherburne, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Grace, Frank D. Hyde and August R. Meyer v. The Casey-Grimshaw Marble Company, for the use of E. A. Sherburne, etc.\n1. Judgment\u2014Void\u2014When Not Cured by Appearance.\u2014A judgment entered against a garnishee without his appearance or service upon him of any kind is void, and he waives no rights by his appearance afterward, and motion to set it aside.\n2. Same\u2014When to be Conditioned Against Garnishee\u2014Where service has been had upon a person named as garnishee, and he fails to appear or answer, a conditional judgment should precede the final one against him.\n3. Same\u2014Considered as a Unit. \u2014A judgment is a unit, and if void as to one is void as to all; so held in a garnishee proceeding where the issues were found for the plaintiff and final judgment rendered against the garnishees for $1,000, the amount of their indebtedness, $572.28 thereof,'the amount mentioned in the affidavit upon which the proceedings were based, for use of the garnishor.\n4. Interpleader\u2014Must State the Nature of the Claim.\u2014Where an interpleader claims, by virtue of an assignment from the principal debtor, by the terms of which he was entitled only to the surplus money after the making of certain payments, he must allege that there is such a surplus and the amount of it.\nGarnishee Proceedings.\u2014Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Nathaniel C. Sears, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nEeversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 22, 1896.\nStatement of the Case.\nAppellee, a citizen of Illinois, sued the Oasey-Grimshaw Marble Company, a corporation of Missouri, by attachment for $572.28. William Grace and Frank D. Hyde, copartners as Grace & Hyde, in Chicago, were summoned as garnishees, the service being on Hyde only. He answered under oath, that at the time of the service the \u201c firm of Grace & Hyde Ivas indebted to the defendant exceeding $1,000.\u201d\nService by publication, in conformity to the statute, was made on the principal defendant, and after the answer of garnishee was filed, the principal defendant was defaulted, and (by a mistake of the clerk) a judgment rendered against the said defendant for $886.38, instead of $572.28, the amount claimed in the affidavit, and the notice published. Thereafter one August E. Meyer, a \u201c citizen of the State of Missouri,\u201d appeared and claimed that he was the owner, by assignment, of the fund in the hands of the garnishees. A demurrer was sustained to this interplea, and thereupon a judgment was rendered against Hyde, the garnishee served, for $572.28, the amount claimed in the affidavit and notice; a sci.fa. was issued to make Grace a party to the judgment. Afterward, \u201c on the agreement of the parties the judgment against Hyde was vacated. On December 8, 1894, an amended interplea was filed by Meyer. On July 19, 1895, the plaintiff (having discovered the mistake in the amount of the judgment) was allowed by the court to correct it to $572.28, the amount claimed in the affidavit and notice, and to this no objection or exception by any one was interposed, but thereupon \u201c the interpleader, August E. Meyer, and the garnishees, Frank D. Hyde and William Grace, submitted their motion to set aside and vacate said judgment.\u201d This motion was overruled, and thereupon the demurrer of plaintiff to the amended interplea was sustained, the issues were found for plaintiff, and final judgment rendered against the garnishees for $1,000, $572.28 thereof for the use of plaintiff, Sherburne.\nF. W. Becker and Dale & Francis, attorneys for appellants.\nE. A. Sherburne, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0149-01",
  "first_page_order": 145,
  "last_page_order": 147
}