{
  "id": 5789973,
  "name": "James Guinane v. William Hogan",
  "name_abbreviation": "Guinane v. Hogan",
  "decision_date": "1898-10-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "272",
  "last_page": "272",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 Ill. App. 272"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 128,
    "char_count": 1404,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.58,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4712253494315692
    },
    "sha256": "ef54e6c1c24cca8564692d85dbb11c9ef8f42aa6aea0af2a1b59f04caf64c3b0",
    "simhash": "1:0ae96465da1922d2",
    "word_count": 230
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:24:05.225079+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James Guinane v. William Hogan."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion Per Curiam.\nThis was an afction of replevin to recover the possession of one hog. The plaintiff maintained his suit, and, we think, rightfully. He showed by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the hog. was his. Appellant urges a reversal because the court refused to dismiss the appeal from the justice before whom the suit was brought to the Circuit Court for want of \u00e1 sufficient appeal bond, and because no demand for the property replevied was made before suit was brought.\nWe see no merit in the contentions made by appellant upon these points, and the case is not of sufficient importance to justify an extended discussion of them. The appeal should never have been taken; especially with the merits of the case so clearly against appellant, and the matter in controversy of such trivial importance. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Opinion Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. D. McAvoy and W. P. Gallon, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Smith & Hairgrove, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James Guinane v. William Hogan.\n1. Appeals\u2014In Matters of Trivial Importance.\u2014Appeals in matters of trivial importance, especially where the merits of the case are clearly against the party appealing, should not be taken.\nReplevin.\u2014Appeal from the County Court of Morgan'County; the Hon. Charles A. Barnes, Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 5, 1898.\nF. D. McAvoy and W. P. Gallon, attorneys for appellant.\nSmith & Hairgrove, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0272-01",
  "first_page_order": 282,
  "last_page_order": 282
}