{
  "id": 1673375,
  "name": "Davis Paint Mfg. Co. v. Metzger Linseed Oil Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Davis Paint Mfg. Co. v. Metzger Linseed Oil Co.",
  "decision_date": "1900-07-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "117",
  "last_page": "118",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 Ill. App. 117"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 2680,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.193064603165465e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4757721396112283
    },
    "sha256": "f13605dd61ad6ddfe73d0a16e82b2e8876a4c4defcf7ee3340e02d7aea9fe2d1",
    "simhash": "1:c21f6eb156aa86bd",
    "word_count": 488
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:41:07.083929+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Davis Paint Mfg. Co. v. Metzger Linseed Oil Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn this case a rehearing was allowed. It was not intended by the opinion filed to say that \u201c O. K.,\u201d in all cases, when indorsed upon a draft of decree, means that such decree is entered by consent. In that \u25a0 opinion, as in other cases, the language used must be considered in connection with and as applicable to the facts before the court. It is conceded in the petition for rehearing that \u201c O. K.\u201d means all correct, but it is claimed that when put upon - a draft of decree it is only an acknowledgment of the correctness of the draft for what it purports to be, \u201c namely, the decision of the court, which had been orally rendered, put into words of form.\u201d But does that apply in this case ? Here there had been no decision of the court orally rendered.\nOne of the assignments of error in this court is that the trial court erred \u201c in entering said decree, no evidence having been heard, no replication having been filed and the answer being taken as true.\u201d The record does not contain any evidence nor does it appear that any was ever taken in the case. There had not then been any decision of the court upon the merits \u00a9f the case \u201c orally rendered, put into words and form \u201d by said decree or draft of decree. The \u201c O. K.\u201d could not then have been equivalent to saying to the court, this draft of decree is correct according to the decision of the court orally rendered. It could have meant or been understood by the court to mean nothing more or less than a consent to the entry of that decree. The supplemental record filed here confirms this conclusion. If this be not correct then it follows that counsel intended to, and did deceive the court into entering the decree. In either case, appellant is not entitled to any relief at the hands of this court. The employing of other counsel in this court from those who \u201c O. K\u2019d,\u201d and thus, under the facts here shown, consented to the entry of said decree, will not avail to aid the plaintiff in error.\nThe decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James Harvey Hooper, attorney for plaintiff in error.",
      "W. H. Gemmill, attorney for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Davis Paint Mfg. Co. v. Metzger Linseed Oil Co.\n1. Words and Phrases\u2014Meaning of the Term O. X.\u2014Where there has been no decision of the court orally rendered, the term \u201c O. K.\u201d indorsed upon a draft of a decree means nothing more or less than a consent to the entry of that decree.\nBill to Set Aside a Judgment.\u2014Error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1899.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion on rehearing filed July 10, 1900.\nJames Harvey Hooper, attorney for plaintiff in error.\nW. H. Gemmill, attorney for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0117-01",
  "first_page_order": 137,
  "last_page_order": 138
}