{
  "id": 5279398,
  "name": "American Preservers' Co. v. Andrew D. Bishop",
  "name_abbreviation": "American Preservers' Co. v. Bishop",
  "decision_date": "1900-04-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "443",
  "last_page": "444",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "88 Ill. App. 443"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "83 Ill. App. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5256095
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/83/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 Ill. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 Ill. 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3223074
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/184/0068-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 Ill. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3091086
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/167/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 Ill. App. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5256095
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/83/0493-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2696,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3776473068507083
    },
    "sha256": "b0baaea9eee93d547f06206f0b83607c921dc020a0b139e645a1cee8a5d20220",
    "simhash": "1:52f37999dc33e390",
    "word_count": 456
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:14.009445+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "American Preservers\u2019 Co. v. Andrew D. Bishop."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe facts in this case are fully set forth in Bishop v. American Preservers\u2019 Company, 167 Ill. 264. In accordance with that opinion the Supreme Court remanded the cause to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. From the judgment thereafter in the latter court dismissing the suit and ordering a retorno habendo, an appeal was taken to this court and the judgment affirmed upon the ground as stated in the opinion by Mr. Justice- Adams, holding \u201cthe judgment appealed from, although not strictly formal, good in substance.\u201d American Preserving Co. v. Bishop, 83 Ill. App. 493.\nIt is unnecessary for us to restate the contention between .the parties, which is fully set forth in the case last cited, to which reference may be had. After said cause had been docketed in this court, attorneys for appellee had moved in the Circuit Court to amend the record of the judgment order, which was done by the amending order of December 15, 1898. The entry of such order was, however, considered, and explicitly approved upon the appeal last referred to, and has since been sustained by the Supreme Court. American Preservers\u2019 Co. v. Bishop, 184 Ill. 68.\nThe appeal in this case is from the same amending order of December 15, 1898. It is prosecuted upon the alleged ground that the court could not properly enter said order, there being no ipinute of the judge or memorial paper upon which to base such amendment. In view of the former holding that the court could lawfully enter the amending order and thus correct the mistake or misprision of the clerk, further discussion of the point suggested is of no practical importance..\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Freeman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moran, Kraus & Mater, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Arnd & Arnd and Lynden Evans, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "American Preservers\u2019 Co. v. Andrew D. Bishop.\n1. Former Decisions\u2014Followed.\u2014The court cites American Preservers\u2019 Co, v. Bishop, 83 Ill. 493, as authority in this case.\n3. Judgments\u2014Sec. 3, of Chap. 7, R. S., Applicable to Appellate Court.\u2014Section 3, of Chap. 7, R. S., providing that no judgment shall be reversed in the Supreme Court for mere error in form, if the judgment be for the true amount of indebtedness or damages, is alike applicable to the Appellate Court. American Preservers\u2019 Co. v. Andrew D. Bishop, 83 Ill. App. 493.\n3. Same\u2014Substance Rather than Form.\u2014 Substance rather than form is to be considered in determining whether a judgment is sufficient.\nReplevin.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Charles E. Fuller, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1899.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 4, 1900.\nMoran, Kraus & Mater, attorneys for appellant.\nArnd & Arnd and Lynden Evans, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0443-01",
  "first_page_order": 467,
  "last_page_order": 468
}
