{
  "id": 5192092,
  "name": "Chicago Paint and Wall Paper Co. v. Jesse L. Hollahan et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chicago Paint & Wall Paper Co. v. Hollahan",
  "decision_date": "1896-12-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "601",
  "last_page": "602",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 601"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. 143",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2579546
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/12/0145-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill. 344",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2581070
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/13/0344-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill. 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2593257
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/17/0235-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 2239,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15617744509428927
    },
    "sha256": "a6b134201cde885df62fefddb16e21fb5058cf8ab00489e0bfe93579095524c1",
    "simhash": "1:96661a673ccf5ed0",
    "word_count": 368
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Chicago Paint and Wall Paper Co. v. Jesse L. Hollahan et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellees having entered in the Circuit Court their general appearance, thereby waived all irregularities in the means by which that court acquired jurisdiction of the cause.\nThe trial in the Circuit Court was to be de novo, and the irregularity of failing to perfect the appeal until twenty-six days after the judgment by the justice, could be waived. Mitchell v. Jacobs et al., 17 Ill. 235; Randolph v. Emerick, 13 Ill. 344; Grallimore v. Dazey, 12 Ill. 143.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuels & Seligman, attorneys for appellant.",
      "No appearance for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Chicago Paint and Wall Paper Co. v. Jesse L. Hollahan et al.\n1. Waiver\u2014Of Irregularities in Perfecting Appeals.\u2014An irregular- \u25a0 ity in failing to perfect an appeal from a justice of the peace to the Circuit Court until twenty-six days after the entry of the judgment by the justice, may be waived by the entry of a general appearance in the Circuit Court by the appellee.\nMotion, to dismiss an appeal. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Charles G. Neely, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 28, 1896.\nStatement op the Case.\nDecember 16, 1895, the plaintiff below perfected its appeal to the Circuit Court of Cook County, from a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace against it on Hovember 20, 1895, for possession of certain property, and $10 damages and costs, in favor of appellees. January 2,1896, being the December term of the Circuit Court, appellees entered their general appearance in that court. February 10,1896, being the January term, appellees moved the Circuit Court to dismiss the appeal from the justice with statutory damages, for reasons appearing in the transcript. Whereupon the court ordered the appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with statutory damages and frocedendo, from which order this appeal is prosecuted.\nThe only ground of dismissal appearing from the transcript is that the judgment before the justice was rendered on November 20, 1895, and the appeal to the Circuit Court was not perfected until December 16th, twenty-six days later.\nSamuels & Seligman, attorneys for appellant.\nNo appearance for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0601-01",
  "first_page_order": 599,
  "last_page_order": 600
}