{
  "id": 2685105,
  "name": "Joseph A. Griswold v. William H. Shaw et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Griswold v. Shaw",
  "decision_date": "1875-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "449",
  "last_page": "450",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 Ill. 449"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 1937,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.614,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.1010824439319835e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9097067049082784
    },
    "sha256": "c1f7fd011fc8064da6f8f9ddfaaaa36a7c96a226b56f759f6a3c1b0af7609a32",
    "simhash": "1:197e9da4462382c8",
    "word_count": 333
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:05.616340+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph A. Griswold v. William H. Shaw et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scholfield\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of assumpsit, by appellees, against appellant, to recover the amount of two promissory notes executed by the latter to the National Life Insurance Company of Chicago, and claimed to have been assigned to appellees.\nThe case was taken up, and judgment rendered against appellant\u2019s objections, out of its order on the docket, under what is known as \u201c the five days\u2019 rule \u201d of the Superior Court. This, as was held in Fisher v. The National Bank of Commerce, Sept. T. 1874, is error, for which the judgment must be reversed.\nIt appears, also, appellees were allowed to amend their declaration in a material respect, and thereafter appellant asked leave to file additional pleas, which the court denied.\nThe pleas proposed to be filed were for the purpose of putting in issue the bonafides of the assignment of the notes. They seem to be properly framed, and verified by affidavit, and, on that assumption, we are at a loss to comprehend why they were not allowed to be filed. Mo rule of court seems to have been in the way, and when the declaration was materially amended, we think appellant had the right to plead to the amended declaration.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scholfield"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Holmes, Rich & Noble, for the appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph A. Griswold v. William H. Shaw et al.\n1. Practice\u2014trying came out of its order. It is error to take a case up and render judgment out of its order on the docket, under what is known as the five dsws\u2019 rule of the Superior Court of Cook county, against the objections of the defendant.\n2. Piling additional pleas\u2014on amendment of declaration. When a plaintiff is permitted to amend his declaration in a material respect, the defendant should be permitted to file additional pleas to the amended declaration.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Holmes, Rich & Noble, for the appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0449-01",
  "first_page_order": 457,
  "last_page_order": 458
}