{
  "id": 425902,
  "name": "Dietrich v. Rumsey",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dietrich v. Rumsey",
  "decision_date": "1867-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "50",
  "last_page": "50",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 Ill. 50"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 110,
    "char_count": 1538,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3732758113084267e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6389304936310959
    },
    "sha256": "96708db256e639913555844337667d086db0254cecd211dbdb10c1501ad98303",
    "simhash": "1:d2ae01496ee0b582",
    "word_count": 270
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:40:50.333701+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dietrich v. Rumsey."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThe record shows a judgment rendered on the 13th day of the month, while the condition of the appeal bond recites a judgment\u2019 rendered on the 14th day of the same month. This misdescription of the judgment appealed from is fatal. A rule nisi will be entered, requiring the appellant to file a sufficient appeal bond, or, in default thereof, the appeal will be dismissed.\nThe bond does not recite that there was a judgment of retorno in the court below; it had better be amended also in that regard.\nMule nisi.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr: Thomas J. Turner,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dietrich v. Rumsey.\n(April Term, 1867.)\n1. Appeal bond\u2014its requisites. Where an appeal bond recites a judgment rendered on the 14th day of the month, and the record, shows the judgment to have been rendered on the 13th day of the same month, the bond will be held insufficient.\n2. Where the judgment appealed from was in replevin, and a return of the property was awarded, the appeal bond should, recite the character of the judgment in that regard.\nThis was an action of replevin instituted by Dietrich against Rumsey. A trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant, upon which a judgment was entered against the plaintiff, on the 13th day of September, 1866, for costs, and awarding a return of the property..- The- plaintiff appealed to this court, the appeal bond reciting a judgment as being rendered on the 14th of September, and describing the judgment as being simply for costs.\nMr: Thomas J. Turner,\nfor the appellee, moved the court to dismiss the appeal, because of the insufficiency of the appeal bond."
  },
  "file_name": "0050-01",
  "first_page_order": 50,
  "last_page_order": 50
}