{
  "id": 5193683,
  "name": "The Yost Manufacturing Co. v. Max R. Alton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Yost Manufacturing Co. v. Alton",
  "decision_date": "1896-12-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "537",
  "last_page": "538",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 537"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. App. 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        856716
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/57/0334-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 Ill. 495",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3127512
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/160/0495-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill. App. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5098366
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/55/0198-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 2329,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5213543337854832
    },
    "sha256": "e125b8cc6015901c55d0d61c272884c02d9d840075f3d3201f2919621570189d",
    "simhash": "1:73b14b6f90a1a709",
    "word_count": 396
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Yost Manufacturing Co. v. Max R. Alton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThe appellant sued out an attachment against the Climax Cycle Company and levied the same upon goods and chattels in the possession of, and claimed as his own, by the appellee, interpleading. At the close of the evidence, the court instructed the jury to find for the appellee.\nThe appellant put in no evidence that the Climax owed the Tost anything. The affidavit upon which the attachment was sued out, was no evidence of any debt.\nWithout evidence of the debt, the appellant could not raise any question of fraud upon it, as a creditor. Springer v. Bigford, 55 Ill. App. 198, 160 Ill. 495.\nThe affidavit upon which a motion for a hew trial, because of newly discovered evidence, was based, is wholly hearsay as to diligence.\nThat the plaintiff, by the direction of this affiant, employed a large number of persons to ascertain the whereabouts \u201d of the witnesses, and \u201c that such efforts were continuously and unremittingly made,\u201d which is the language of the affidavit, gives no information as to what efforts were made; and besides, the affidavit is not in the bill of exceptions, and though read by us, in so doing we went out of the record. Bowlan v. Lambka, 57 Ill. App. 334.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wilber, Turner & Hill and David J. Wile, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Osborne, Guerin & Shrimski, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Yost Manufacturing Co. v. Max R. Alton.\n1. Attachments\u2014Evidence of Debt Should Precede Evidence of Fraud,.\u2014An affidavit upon which a writ of attachment is sued out is not evidence of a debt, and without evidence of a debt a plaintiff can not question the transactions of the defendant on the ground of fraud.\n2. New Trials\u2014Newly Discovered Evidence\u2014What Affidavit Should Show.\u2014Statements in an affidavit for a new trial \u201c that the plaintiff, by the direction of this affiant, employed a large number of persons to ascertain the whereabouts of the witnesses \u201d and \u201c that such efforts were continuously and unremittingly made \u201d give no information as to what efforts were made and do not show cause for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.\nAttachment.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 28, 1896.\nWilber, Turner & Hill and David J. Wile, attorneys for appellant.\nOsborne, Guerin & Shrimski, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0537-01",
  "first_page_order": 535,
  "last_page_order": 536
}