{
  "id": 5192364,
  "name": "Frank G. Logan et al. v. Dennis F. Sibley et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Logan v. Sibley",
  "decision_date": "1898-12-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "579",
  "last_page": "580",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 579"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "139 Ill. 508",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3006493
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/139/0508-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 Ill. 397",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5413276
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/128/0397-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2655596
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/84/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill. 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2590881
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/16/0306-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 3089,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15618246469195696
    },
    "sha256": "31b9693a7ec2d733a7b2c52ab82805f9b1d6ec78b70fc0453f1a8a34106e42d3",
    "simhash": "1:fae1d2632cc9382d",
    "word_count": 539
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank G. Logan et al. v. Dennis F. Sibley et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion op the Court.\nThe appellants commenced this suit against Sibley, by attachment, and their first complaint is that the court permitted Sibley to amend his plea first put in under Sec. 27, Ch. 11, \u201cAttachments,\u201d denying the affidavit upon which the attachment issued. Before the present law of 1872, the plea was, in name and effect, a plea in abatement. B. S., 1845, Ch. 9, Sec. 8; Eddy v. Brady, 16 Ill. 306.\nBut under the law now in force, it is neither in name, nor in effect, a plea in abatement, though it is a dilatory plea in cases of original attachments, and therefore the plaintiff should always, if he wants speed, make his attachments in aid, under Sec. 31. Schulenburg v. Farwell, 84 Ill. 400.\nSuch a plea is, under the present law, amendable. McFarland v. Claypool, 128 Ill. 397, does not decide, but implies, that proposition.\nThe brief of the appellant states \u201c the only clear asset \u201d Sibley had in Illinois were these patents for improvements in grain machinery.\u201d If a patent is considered as the paper on which it is written, it may be carried about\u2014removed; but considered as property, it is the intangible right to a monopoly of the patented device, covering the whole territory of the United States wherever the owner may be. \u2022 An owner may make a fraudulent disposition of it, or may be about so to do, but the affidavit did not state either of those grounds. It was only upon allegations of removal of property from the State that the attachment was sued out, under the third and fourth clauses of Seo. 1 of the attachment act. The only property Sibley had having no location, no more than has the law under which the patents issued, he could not remove it, and therefore there was no ground for the attachment. The appellants took judgment for the debt due to them, and that was all that they were entitled to.\nIf any irregularities occurred during the proceedings in the Superior Court, the appellants were not injured and can not complain. Dilworth v. Curts, 139 Ill. 508; Primley v. Shirk, 163 Ibid. 389.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hamline, Scott & Lord, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Charles B. Wood and Horace S. Oakley, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank G. Logan et al. v. Dennis F. Sibley et al.\n1. Attachments\u2014Flea Denying the Affidavit Amendable\u2014A plea, under section 27, chapter 11, R. S., entitled \u201c Attachments,\u201d denying the affidavit upon which the attachment issued, is neither in name nor in effect a plea in abatement. In cases of original attachments it is a dilatory plea, but is amendable under the present law.\n2. Same\u2014When they do Not Lie Against the Owners of Patent Rights. \u2014A patent is the intangible right to a monopoly of the patented device, covering the whole territory of the United States, and an attachment will not lie against such owner upon the grounds that he is about to remove the same from the State.\nAttachment.\u2014Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the\nHon. Arthur H. Chetlain, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 28, 1898.\nHamline, Scott & Lord, attorneys for appellants.\nCharles B. Wood and Horace S. Oakley, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0579-01",
  "first_page_order": 577,
  "last_page_order": 578
}