{
  "id": 5193824,
  "name": "O. M. Brady v. Washington Insurance Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brady v. Washington Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1896-11-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "159",
  "last_page": "160",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 159"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5319343
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/73/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ill. 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2607007
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/62/0195-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. App. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5032984
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "223"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/41/0140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. App. 312",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5781397
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/56/0312-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 Ill. 492",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        6045834
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/158/0492-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5101461
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/54/0242-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 2931,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.692609448424288e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3579513709100415
    },
    "sha256": "679291a483ea06918173676b90480eb6c560dbfb1306674fdd0949967141fb25",
    "simhash": "1:11df172f402e0c90",
    "word_count": 512
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "O. M. Brady v. Washington Insurance Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion op'the Court.\nApril 30, 1898, an appeal, by the appellee here from a justice, pending in the Superior Court, was dismissed for want of prosecution at the costs of the appellee here and appellant there, for which final judgment was then and there entered.\nMay 23, 1896, which was in the following term of the court, without notice, so far as the record shows, to the appellant here, that judgment was set aside and the appeal reinstated.\nAt the next term thereafter, the case was called for trial and dismissed for want of prosecution, and final judgment entered against the appellant here for costs.\nWhether there was such cause for setting aside the first judgment as would have been available upon the common law writ of error coram nobis, does not appear by this record'\u2014and probably there was no such cause; but if there had been, the court had no jurisdiction, having once lost it by the lapse of the term, to act without notice. Morgan v. Campbell, 54 Ill. App. 242; Underwood v. Masterson, No. 6678, filed November 5, 1896.\nOn direct proceedings to review a judgment, the jurisdiction of the court over the person must appear by the record. or the judgment can not be sustained. Ibid., and Law v. Grommes, 158 Ill. 492, reversing 56 Ill. App. 312.\nAlthough the record states that the appellant excepted to the last action of the court, it does not appear that he did anything that waived his right to object that the court had not regained jurisdiction of the case, as did the defendant in Prall v. Hunt, 41 Ill. App. 140, and the plaintiff in Nat. Un. Bldg. Ass\u2019n v. Brewer, Ibid. 223. See also Newlan v. Lombard University, 62 Ill. 195, and Humphreyville v. Culver, 73 Ill. 485, that litigants may waive a preceding disposition of their case.\nThe judgment of the June term, 1896, is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to vacate the order of the May term, 1896, unless some cause be shown for setting aside the judgment of April, 1896, which would be sufficient on a writ of error coram nobis.\nAs to what would be such cause, there is much learning in the books.\nBeversed and remanded with directions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. L. Salisbury, attorney for appellant.",
      "A. L. Flaningham, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O. M. Brady v. Washington Insurance Co.\n1. Judgments\u2014Setting Aside\u2014Notice.\u2014Notice must be given to the parties in interest before a final judgment can be set aside after the close of the term at which it was rendered.\n2. Jurisdiction\u2014Must Appear in Record, to Sustain Judgment.\u2014On direct proceedings to review a judgment, the jurisdiction of the court over the persons must appear by the record, or the judgment can not be sustained.\nTranscript, from justice of the peace. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Nathaniel C. Sears, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed November 19, 1896.\nF. L. Salisbury, attorney for appellant.\nA. L. Flaningham, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0159-01",
  "first_page_order": 157,
  "last_page_order": 158
}
