{
  "id": 5176611,
  "name": "S. S. Sleeper & Co. v. World's Fair Banquet Hall Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "S. S. Sleeper & Co. v. World's Fair Banquet Hall Co.",
  "decision_date": "1896-06-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "641",
  "last_page": "642",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 641"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5113315
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/51/0100-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 199,
    "char_count": 2416,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3473090516088004
    },
    "sha256": "c3fc476e57c80f6019e9ee9b3431ef8027b92d6d80c5d779ca55d70fe3ac6bd7",
    "simhash": "1:61eb1dbf4028eef5",
    "word_count": 396
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. S. Sleeper & Co. v. World\u2019s Fair Banquet Hall Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThe appellants are partners, and we follow the irregular practice of the parties here in using the firm name, instead of pursuing the course laid down by Chitty, 1 Ch. Pl. 230, Ed. 1888.\nThe appellants were plaintiffs, and sued the appellees by attachment. Much of the abstract and briefs is occupied with the proceedings at the circuit on the attachment, ,but which do not concern us on this appeal, because, the action itself being misconceived, no errors upon the attachment, which, though original, is yet in legal effect only auxiliary to the action of assumpsit, are now material. Columbian Hard Wood Lumber Co. v. Langley, 51 Ill. App. 100.\nThe action is against one John H. Morris and the Banquet Hall Company joined as defendants, and while the declaration undertakes to show contracts by each of the defendants with the plaintiffs, there is no hint of any contract by the defendants jointly.\nThe declaration sets out two written contracts with Morris, and alleges the payment to Morris by the plaintiffs of money thereunder; that Morris delivered the contracts and money to the Banquet Hall Company, which accepted the contracts and promised to perform them. To whom that promise was made the declaration does not state.\nThe case cited and those therein referred to are conclusive. See also 1 Ch. Pl 34, Ed. 1828.\nThe plaintiffs withdrew all of their declarations except one special count, and to that the court rightly sustained a demurrer. The plaintiffs stood by the count, and final judgment was entered for the defendants, which is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. A. Parks and McCartney & Giddings, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Moses, Pam & Kennedy, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. S. Sleeper & Co. v. World\u2019s Fair Banquet Hall Co.\n1. Attachment\u2014Auxiliary to the Action of Assumpsit. \u2014Proceedings by attachment, though original, am yet in legal effect only auxiliary to the action.\n2. Pleadings\u2014Contracts and Promises.\u2014A declaration upon a contract containing promises of performance, and which fails to state to whom such promises were made, is insufficient.\n3. Practice\u2014Joint Actions.\u2014A joint action against two, can not be sustained upon separate contracts by each.\nAssumpsit, on contracts. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 11, 1896.\nC. A. Parks and McCartney & Giddings, attorneys for appellants.\nMoses, Pam & Kennedy, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0641-01",
  "first_page_order": 639,
  "last_page_order": 640
}