{
  "id": 5277971,
  "name": "Frank J. Horning v. August Frank et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Horning v. Frank",
  "decision_date": "1900-03-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "87",
  "last_page": "89",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "88 Ill. App. 87"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "183 Ill. 519",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5553903
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/183/0519-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 Ill. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3182244
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/170/0298-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 185,
    "char_count": 2928,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.566,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15725743083863192
    },
    "sha256": "05a903ef095677bdda97230e13721d819fc06168ac9dcc5cc5134d79c38b2293",
    "simhash": "1:15114da90755c098",
    "word_count": 496
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:14.009445+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank J. Horning v. August Frank et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe only question which we need consider in this case is whether it was error to permit defendants in error to withdraw a plea of puis darrein continuance, which had been demurred to and to refile a plea of general issue.\nThe plaintiff in error sued to recover for personal injuries, and to the declaration filed in his behalf, the defendants in error pleaded the general issue. Subsequently, and before the case was called for trial, the defendants by leave of court filed a plea of puis darrein continuance. To this the plaintiff filed general and special demurrers. When the case was called for trial, plaintiff\u2019s counsel moved the court that the demurrers be sustained; whereupon defendants\u2019 attorneys asked leave to withdraw the plea puis, and to file or refile the general issue, which, upon leave granted, was immediately done. It is urged that it was error to allow defendants to withdraw their said plea and return to the general issue; that the demurrers to the plea puis should have been sustained, the defendants defaulted and a jury impaneled to assess the plaintiff\u2019s damages.\nWhile it is true that a plea puis darrein continuance supersedes all other pleas and defenses, and by operation of law has the effect to cause all other pleas to be stricken from the record, the cause of action to be admitted, and everything confessed except the matter contested by the plea puis, (Angus v. Trust & Savings Bank, 170 Ill. 298,) yet under the twenty-third section of the practice act, allowing amendments the motion to withdraw it, and to reinstate the plea of the general issue, ivas properly allowed. The technical rule that the general issue was waived by the plea puis will not be allowed to deprive the defendants of a right to make their defense, if they desire to withdraw such plea before trial, and restore the plea of general issue. Whether terms shall be imposed is a matter within the sound discretion of the court. Eipley v. Leverenz, 183 Ill. 519-522. .\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Freeman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Scanlan & Masters, attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "Ho appearance by defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank J. Horning v. August Frank et al.\n1. Practice\u2014Withdrawing a Plea Puis Darrein Continuance.\u2014A plea puis darrein continuance supersedes all other pleas and by operation of law has the effect to cause all other pleas to be stricken from the record, and the cause of action to be admitted and everything confessed, except the matter contested by the plea puis; but under the twenty-third section of the practice act, allowing amendments, a motion to withdraw it and to reinstate the plea of general issue is properly allowed.\nAction in Case, for personal injuries. Error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1899.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 13, 1900.\nScanlan & Masters, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nHo appearance by defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0087-01",
  "first_page_order": 111,
  "last_page_order": 113
}