{
  "id": 5272684,
  "name": "Calumet Land Co. and Louis A. Bryan v. James A. Perry",
  "name_abbreviation": "Calumet Land Co. v. Perry",
  "decision_date": "1900-01-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "378",
  "last_page": "380",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "86 Ill. App. 378"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 3606,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "sha256": "c3215a7dc60dddcc9aef47d66aa83db8f87d10306aa6042f4369d85599b34218",
    "simhash": "1:03925de6dee75640",
    "word_count": 624
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:28:30.258939+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Calumet Land Co. and Louis A. Bryan v. James A. Perry."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is a suit by appellee upon a promissory note made by appellants, payable to the order of the American Exchange National Bank. The indorsements material to this controversy are written \u201c Am. Ex. Nat. Bank \u201d and \u201cAm. Nat. Bank.\u201d The declaration contained a special count and also the common counts.\nThe special count declared that the defendants made the said promissory note, etc., and thereby promised to pay four hundred dollars to the order of the American Exchange National Bank of Chicago, and that said bank indorsed the said note to the American National Bank, a corporation, etc., by which it was indorsed to the plaintiff. It appeared upon the hearing from the evidence that the name of the bank which transferred the note in question to the plaintiff was in fact \u201c America National Bank.\u201d Appellee\u2019s counsel thereupon asked leave to correct the alleged clerical error upon the face of the declaration, by striking out the superfluous letter \u201c n,\u201d which motion was granted, the pleas on file to stand to the amended declaration.\nCounsel for appellants then objected to proceeding with the trial of the cause and moved to strike it from the short cause calendar, upon the call of which the cause was being tried. This motion being denied, appellants\u2019 counsel asked leave to file to the declaration as amended an amended plea, which they had that morning before been refused leave to file to the original declaration.\nIt is now urged that such leave should have been granted because appellants were entitled to plead de novo to the declaration after it had been amended by striking out the letter n, so as to make the name of the bank'read \u201c America\u201d instead of \u201cAmerican.\u201d No reason appears why the motion to file the rejected plea should have been granted. If a technical reason for justifying the court\u2019s refusal to allow it to be filed was wanted, it would be found in the fact that the said amended plea contained the same error in the name of the bank as the original declaration. The only reason stated in support of the motion, so far as appears from the abstract was, that after the amendment of the declaration the cause was not at issue. No offer was made and no leave requested to plead generally to the amended declaration. The amendment to the declaration, so far as appears, was not at all material, in that it did not affect appellants\u2019 defense to the note sued upon, nor render any new defense necessary. No showing at all was made in support of the motion to file the amended plea. Appellants offered no evidence, and if they have a meritorious defense to the action they utterly failed to make it manifest.\nWhere the plaintiff amends in matters of form only, the defendant is not, for that' reason, and as a matter of course, entitled to a continuance. So far as can be determined from the record before us, the desire to plead de novo was not manifested at the trial.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Freeman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John J. McClellan and Charles C. Spencer, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Jesse A. & Henry R. Baldwin, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Calumet Land Co. and Louis A. Bryan v. James A. Perry.\n1. Practice\u2014Amendments in Matters of Form.\u2014Where a plaintiff amends his declaration in matters of form only, the defendant is not, for that reason, and as a matter of course, entitled to a continuance.\nAssumpsit, on a promissory note. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 2, 1900.\nJohn J. McClellan and Charles C. Spencer, attorneys for appellants.\nJesse A. & Henry R. Baldwin, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0378-01",
  "first_page_order": 386,
  "last_page_order": 388
}