{
  "id": 5261916,
  "name": "Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. John Meehan",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. Meehan",
  "decision_date": "1899-09-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "262",
  "last_page": "264",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 262"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "176 Ill. 222",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 236,
    "char_count": 3781,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0269956336558407e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5469741672197878
    },
    "sha256": "b41462667a599977abe0565dcfc9fb5e43d15a7519db2dcf64d6faeb493581c9",
    "simhash": "1:dbdb7d9490150abf",
    "word_count": 640
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:05:11.837712+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. John Meehan."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Worthington\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff in error replevied a piano under a chattel mortgage, from John Meehan, a constable, who had levied on it upon an execution against the mortgagors.\nThe facts in the case were stipulated. Trial by the court. Judgment for defendant in error.\nThe only question involved is the validity of the chattel mortgage.\nThe entry in the justice\u2019s docket, at the time of taking the acknowledgment, is as follows:\nFee, fifty cents. Mortgage and description of property bought: one Schuman & Sons\u2019 piano; all in consideration of which said mortgagors gave twenty-one promissory notes bearing even date herewith; one for the sum of $\u00cd0 each month, beginning May 26,1897, bearing interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. Signed, sealed and delivered this 28th day of April, A. D. 1897.\nDefendant in error claims that the entry in the justice\u2019s docket is insufficient in omitting the word \u201c acknowledged,\u201d and that the mortgage is thereby invalid against an execution creditor of the mortgagors.\nThis claim is not well founded. The object of the entry on the docket was to give notice of the mortgage. This was as fully accomplished by certifying that it was signed, sealed and delivered, as by certifying that it was acknowledged.\nA certificate that it was signed, sealed and delivered is, in legal effect, a certificate that it was acknowledged.\nThe stipulation shows that it was duly recorded in the. clerk\u2019s office.\nIt is said in Pease v. Fish Furniture Co., 176 Ill. 222:\n\u201c The entry was ample to notify any person who might desire to give the mortgagor credit, or buy any of her property, that she had mortgaged the property. The fact that the justice had made a mistake in the name of the mortgagee was of little consequence. The main inquiry ' was whether Abby Pinksten had mortgaged her property, and if so, the amount. These facts were fully disclosed by the entry on the docket of the justice. Moreover, the mortgagee in this case did all that she could properly be required to do\u201e to make the mortgages valid instruments. The mortgages were drawn in proper form, duty acknowledged, as required by statute, and placed on record, and the mere fact that the justice did not make a proper entry on his docket could not invalidate the mortgage.\u201d\nApplying the doctrine of this decision, there can be no doubt of the validity of the mortgage in question.\nAs a jury was waived in this case, and the facts stipulated, the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and judgment will be entered in this court for plaintiff in error against defendant in error, for costs, and that the piano in question is the property of plaintiff in error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Worthington"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Silas Cook, attorney for plaintiff in error.",
      "Burroughs & Bro., attorneys for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. John Meehan.\n1. Chattel Mortgages\u2014Sufficiency of Justice's Certificate,\u2014The entry in the justice\u2019s docket, at the time of making the acknowledgment of a chattel mortgage, as follows\u2014\n3. Same\u2014Legal Effect of the Words \u201c Signed, Sealed and Delivered.\u201d \u2014A certificate that a chattel mortgage was signed, sealed and delivered is, in legal effect, a certificate that it was acknowledged.\n3. Same\u2014Mistakes of the Justice.\u2014Where a chattel mortgage is drawn in proper form, duly acknowledged, as required by statute, and placed on record, the mere fact that the justice did not make a proper entry on his docket can not invalidate it.\nReplevin.\u2014Trial in the Circuit Court of Madison County; the Hon. Martin W. Schaefer, Judge, presiding. Finding and judgment for defendant; error by plaintiff. Heard in this court at the February term, 1899.\nReversed and judgment for the plaintiff in error entered in this court.\nOpinion filed September 5, 1899.\nSilas Cook, attorney for plaintiff in error.\nBurroughs & Bro., attorneys for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0262-01",
  "first_page_order": 270,
  "last_page_order": 272
}