{
  "id": 2824531,
  "name": "Louisa McCall v. William S. Moss",
  "name_abbreviation": "McCall v. Moss",
  "decision_date": "1881-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "461",
  "last_page": "462",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "100 Ill. 461"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 106,
    "char_count": 2160,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.3046738274781807e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8721027751038767
    },
    "sha256": "9725f518b304c175eaa919cfade8a7984d50f807352ce772acd73411d16ed29e",
    "simhash": "1:c3ab702c5ca1e412",
    "word_count": 395
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:32:43.701129+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Louisa McCall v. William S. Moss."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Sheldon, J.:\nThis is a motion to discharge a rule to give an additional appeal bond in a larger sum. It is an appeal from the Appellate Court. The circuit court rendered a decree for $36,000. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Court, and the circuit court' required a bond of $40,000. That bond was given. The Appellate Court affirmed the decree. On appeal from the Appellate Court to this court an appeal bond of $300 vfas required. If given, that bond would be sufficient to cover costs in this court, in case we affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court, and we' understand that this bond for $40,000, given in the circuit court on the appeal to the Appellate Court, would stand as security for the payment of the decree. If so, we think the bond is sufficient in amount. No exception is taken to the sufficiency of the sureties,\u2014it is only as to the amount of the bond.\nThe rule will be discharged.\nRule discharged,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Sheldon, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. H. B. Hopkins, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. David McCulloch, and Mr. John Muckle, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Louisa McCall v. William S. Moss.\nAt Ottawa, March Term, 1881.\nAppeal bond-\u2014liability thereon\u2014sufficiency as to amount. A decree was rendered in the trial court for $36,000. On an appeal to the Appellate Court an appeal bond was given in the sum of $40,000. The decree was affirmed on that appeal, and on a further appeal\" to the Supreme Court an appeal bond in the sum of only $300 was given. On the question whether the latter bond was for a sufficient amount, it was considered that in case of an affirmance by this court of the judgment of t\u00a1he Appellate Court, the appeal bond given on the appeal from the trial court would stand as security for the decree rendered in that court, and as the appeal bond given on the appeal to the Supreme Court was sufficient in amount to cover the costs in this court, that was all that was required.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District.\nAt the March term of this court the appellee entered his motion for a rule upon the appellant to give an additional appeal bond in a larger sum. At the present term the appellant moves to discharge the rule entered under the prior motion.\nMr. H. B. Hopkins, for the appellant.\nMr. David McCulloch, and Mr. John Muckle, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0461-01",
  "first_page_order": 461,
  "last_page_order": 462
}