{
  "id": 5199550,
  "name": "Samuel J. Howe v. Grant Forman",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howe v. Forman",
  "decision_date": "1896-12-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "398",
  "last_page": "399",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 Ill. App. 398"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "164 Ill. 455",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5502001
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/164/0455-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5192761
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/67/0252-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 Ill. 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        835355
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/152/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 Ill. 355",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2878590
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/115/0355-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill. 534",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2575048
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/11/0534-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 2819,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4722076460828411
    },
    "sha256": "eadfde55b13ed61bc1c934c5d838c54dcd96e9051953df0af820163ea485fe25",
    "simhash": "1:bf2d418d4229cd59",
    "word_count": 509
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:54.666299+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel J. Howe v. Grant Forman."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nOctober 6, 1896, the Circuit Court, upon motion of the appellee, appointed a receiver of the property and effects of the appellant and one George C. Mast\u00edn, and in the same record entry rendered judgment against them for $307.46 in favor of the appellee.\nThe appellant and Mast\u00edn prayed an appeal, which was \u201c allowed upon their filing their bond,\u201d etc.\nNovember 5, 1896, the appellant alone filed an appeal bond, reciting an appeal by him, \u201c impleaded with George C. Mast\u00edn,\u201d from the judgment only, and on the same day filed the transcript of the record here.\nBy operation of law, that appeal is to the next term of this court.\nIn Reynolds v. Perry, 11 Ill. 534, the Supreme Court held that a motion to dismiss an appeal \u201c improvidently granted,\u201d might be granted before the term to which the appeal would take the case.\nThat the case is not properly here upon a bond by the appellant only, is conceded. Hileman v. Beale, 115 Ill. 355, is in point; but the appellant asks leave to file a bond here, in accordance with the order granting the appeal\u2014relying upon section 69 of the practice act. Tedrick v. Wells, 152 Ill. 214, decides that where an appear is granted to a nominal plaintiff, suing for the benefit of others, a bond given by the persons for whose benefit the suit was prosecuted, would not bring up his appeal, so that he might be in court upon a bond to be given by him, under the section cited.\nThe defect here is the same in principle.\nMast\u00edn has taken \u201c no appeal, and made no attempt to do so,\u201d as was said by Judge Baker there of Tedrick. The appeal is not from the order appointing the receiver; had it been, the question would have been different. John F. Alles Plumbing Co. v. Alles, 67 Ill. App. 252.\nThe motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal dismissed.\n[Note.\u2014Since this case was decided, the Supreme Court decided Hammond v. People, 164 Ill. 455, on which this court acted in Kelley v. Leith, April 15, 1897.]",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel J. Howe, pro se.",
      "John 0. Wilson, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel J. Howe v. Grant Forman.\n1. Appeals\u2014 When They May Be Dismissed.\u2014A motion to dismiss an appeal improperly taken, may be allowed before the term to which, the appeal would take the case.\n2. Appeal Bonds\u2014Gan Dot Be Amended by Filing Bond of Another Party.\u2014Section 69 of the practice act, providing for the amendment of informal and insufficient appeal bonds, applies only \u20221 to the party taking such appeal,\u201d and does not authorize the filing of a bond by a paity to the suit, who did not join in the appeal.\nMotion, to dismiss an appeal. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Murray F. Tuley, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAppeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed December 28, 1896.\nSamuel J. Howe, pro se.\nJohn 0. Wilson, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0398-01",
  "first_page_order": 396,
  "last_page_order": 397
}