{
  "id": 5238466,
  "name": "Edward Cohen v. Fred Schulz",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cohen v. Schulz",
  "decision_date": "1898-01-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "244",
  "last_page": "246",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "73 Ill. App. 244"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "59 Ill. App. 657",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5153386
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/59/0657-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Ill. 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        438682
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/18/0304-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 2396,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.542,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.884019216713409e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41867730512473894
    },
    "sha256": "b638f294c00dbc09213c445219c80f12e95ba96cc25f9af54adda73dcafd3c4d",
    "simhash": "1:8ad6965c3dd3851f",
    "word_count": 407
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:07:49.615974+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward Cohen v. Fred Schulz."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Adams\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment rendered in an action of debt on a foreign judgment. The cause, by agreement of the parties, was tried by the court without a jury. The bill of exceptions shows that a transcript was put in evidence by the plaintiff below, but does -not contain the transcript. Such being the case, the presumption is that the omitted evidence warranted the judgment. The defendant below introduced no evidence. He merely read on the trial a long plea setting up an assignment of the judgment sued on, apparently on the hypothesis that the court would accept the plea as evidence, which the court very properly refused to do. The\" plea, itself, was no answer to the action. A court of law looks only to the legal title, and in a suit on a record or non-negotiable instrument by the party having the legal title, if the record or instrument has been assigned, it is not necessary to mention the name of the equitable owner either in the summons or the declaration. Zimmerman v. Wead, 18 Ill. 304; Tedrick v. Wells, 59 Ill. App. 657.\nAssuming that appellant\u2019s attorney possesses a moderate degree of knowledge of law and legal procedure, the inevitable conclusion, from inspection of the record is, that this appeal was taken solely for delay, which being the case, the court might well have been spared the infliction and appellant the expense of of a long string of printed Words entitled \u201cBrief,\u201d but containing not a single tenable legal proposition applicable to the case. \u25a0\nThere being no errors apparent in the record, except those committed by appellant\u2019s attorney, the judgment will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Adams"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edwy Logan Beeves, attorney for appellant.",
      "Hoyne, Follansbee & O\u2019Connor, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward Cohen v. Fred Schulz.\nPleading\u2014Name of Equitable Owner of Non-negotiable Instrument Need not be Mentioned.\u2014A court of law looks only to the legal title, and in a suit on a record or non-negotiable instrument by the party having the legal title, if the record or instrument has been assigned, it is not necessary to mention the name of the equitable owner either in the summons or the declaration.\nDebt, on a foreign judgment. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 27, 1898.\nEdwy Logan Beeves, attorney for appellant.\nHoyne, Follansbee & O\u2019Connor, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0244-01",
  "first_page_order": 244,
  "last_page_order": 246
}