{
  "id": 5202350,
  "name": "William G. Rogerson et. al. v. Henry Drucker, Assignee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rogerson v. Drucker",
  "decision_date": "1897-03-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "159",
  "last_page": "159",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 159"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 125,
    "char_count": 1236,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "sha256": "cc8caf180b88d8186f7ec2a27ab13219b995cedf3aabac3eb3a570c9705c4c3a",
    "simhash": "1:5ed6e488149a1cea",
    "word_count": 213
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William G. Rogerson et. al. v. Henry Drucker, Assignee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "]VIr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThe question argued by the parties is whether the provision for preferences for wages of laborers and servants, contained in Sec. 6 of the act of 1877, concerning assignments for benefit of creditors, is repealed, or other provisions made in substitution thereof, by the act of 1895 amending the act of 1887, to protect employes and laborers in their claims for wages.\nThis record does not show that the appellants complied with the conditions of either the one or the other of the statutes referred to. We may not say that the County Court erred in denying relief to which the appellants show no title. We do not consider mere abstract questions of law.\nThe order appealed from is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "]VIr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward J. Walsh, attorney for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Hamline, Scott &Lord, attorneys for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William G. Rogerson et. al. v. Henry Drucker, Assignee.\n1. Error\u2014In Denying Relief\u2014What is Not.\u2014It is not error to deny the relief to which an applicant shows no title.\nAssignment for the Benefit of Creditors.\u2014Error to the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Orrin H. Carter, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 8, 1897.\nEdward J. Walsh, attorney for plaintiffs in error.\nHamline, Scott &Lord, attorneys for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0159-01",
  "first_page_order": 157,
  "last_page_order": 157
}
