{
  "id": 5190906,
  "name": "Michael J. Cahill v. John J. McGrath",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cahill v. McGrath",
  "decision_date": "1896-11-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "103",
  "last_page": "104",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 103"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "42 Ill. 467",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5294002
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/42/0467-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill. 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2584079
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/13/0313-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill. App. 365",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        863619
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/23/0365-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 2290,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15615755976506737
    },
    "sha256": "934fb35502bdbc4dadc3bb76c525aa44c37711208ccfca82ce1ca1292be4c646",
    "simhash": "1:c74325e29e022f5a",
    "word_count": 388
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Michael J. Cahill v. John J. McGrath."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe entry in the docket of the justice has none of the elements of a confession of judgment. For a defendant to acknowledge before a justice of the peace, or other court, that he is indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum, is not to confess or consent to judgment.\nA judgment is always the result of a decision by a court, and is entered against a party nolens volens, or because he consents to\u2014confesses\u2014judgment.\nThere is a manifest and wide distinction between confessing an indebtedness and confessing judgment. Goddard v. Fischer, 23 Ill. App. 365; Campbell v. Randolph, 13 Ill. 313; Elliott v. Daiber, 42 Ill. 467.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. E. Keeley, attorney for appellant.",
      "Martin A. DeLany, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michael J. Cahill v. John J. McGrath.\n1. Judgment\u2014The Result of a Decision by a Court.\u2014A judgment is always the result of a decision by a court, and is entered against a party nolens volens, or because he consents to\u2014confesses\u2014judgment.\n2. Same\u2014Confession of Indebtedness.\u2014There is a manifest distinction between confessing an indebtedness and confessing judgment.\nTranscript, from a justice of the peace.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard, in this court at the October term, 1896.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 30, 1896.\nStatement oe the Case.\nThis was an action commenced in a justice court by summons, returnable January 23,1896. The case was continued to January 28, 1896, when the parties thereto were present in court. What was the subject-matter of the action, or the evidence therein, does not appear. The justice docket recites as follows:\n\u201c Parties present, plaintiff sworn and examined, and defendant confesses and. acknowledges that he is indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five dollars and costs of suit; \u201d then follows an entry of judgment in the usual form.\nThe defendant took an appeal to the Circuit Court of Cook County. On March 28,1896, that court, on motion of plaintiff, dismissed the appeal on the ground that an appeal does not lie from a judgment by confession in justice court, and that this was a judgment by confession.\nW. E. Keeley, attorney for appellant.\nMartin A. DeLany, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0103-01",
  "first_page_order": 101,
  "last_page_order": 102
}