{
  "id": 2758360,
  "name": "Samuel Myers v. Benjamin Shoneman et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Myers v. Shoneman",
  "decision_date": "1878-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "80",
  "last_page": "82",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 Ill. 80"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "86 Ill. 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2772315
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/86/0057-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 3834,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.58,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1647152712451066e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5848694267503627
    },
    "sha256": "89454d82c0a9c784ae81235919ec3bbd8a1a6a19c8b4d0972a20347dda33de4e",
    "simhash": "1:bb504cf13eae5f4f",
    "word_count": 616
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:29:01.144424+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel Myers v. Benjamin Shoneman et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Sheldon\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action, brought upon an appeal bond given on appeal to this court, from a money judgment recovered in the Superior Court of Cook county, for $2683 and costs. An affidavit of claim was filed with the declaration. A plea of non est factum, not sworn to, filed by the defendant, Myers, was, on motion of the plaintiffs, stricken from the files by the court below because no affidavit of merits was filed 'with the plea, and the default of the defendant was entered, and judgment rendered against him, from which he appealed.\nThe striking of the plea from the files is assigned for error, upon the ground that the suit was not upon a contract for the payment of money. This precise question was decided by this court in the case of Coursen v. Browning, 86 Ill. 57, where it was held that an appeal bond given upon an appeal from a money judgment was a contract for the payment of money.\nIt is objected, that the fee bill, or the plaintiff\u2019s bill of costs, in the case in the Superior Court, was improperly admitted in evidence, because unintelligible.\nThe abbreviations therein appearing would be understood by the court, before whom, without a jury, the cause was tried. There is no force in the objection. ,\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Sheldon"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. William H. King, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Rosenthal & Pence, for the appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel Myers v. Benjamin Shoneman et al.\n1. Practice\u2014affidavit of merits to plea. An appeal bond given on appeal to the Supreme Court, from a money judgment, is a contract for the payment of money, within the meaning.of the Practice act, requiring the defendant to file an affidavit of merits with his plea, when the plaintiff attaches an affidavit of his claim to his declaration.\n2. Abbreviations\u2014do not vitiate fee bill if intelligible. Where the defendant is defaulted, and the cause is heard before the court without a jury, a fee bill will not be rejected as unintelligible if the abbreviations therein can be understood by the court.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action of debt, brought upon an appeal bond, by Benjamin Shoneman and Samuel Shoneman, against Samuel Meyers and Peter J. Clausen.\nThe following ie a copy of the plaintiff\u2019s fee bill, referred to in the opinion :\n\u201c 1871. Mch. T. App. and atty. 15: fil. prase. 5; fil. nar and copy, 10. .30\n\u201c Sum\u2019s and fil. 40...............................................................40\n\u201c Ap\u2019l to Nov. terms, each T. fee 50........................................ 4.00\n\u201c Dec. T. T. fee 50................................................................50\n1872. Jan\u2019y to July terms, each T. 50: fil. new nar......................... 3.50\n\u201c F. e. 10; fil. not, 5; ent. rule to plead, 20...............................35\n\u00a72.00 1872. Aug., Sept, and Nov. terms, each T. fee 50.....\n.20 \u201c Ent. leave to file sev\u2019l replic\u2019s, 20................\n.25 \u201c Fil. do....................................................\n1.00 \u201c Nov. and Dec. terms, each T. fee 50..............\n3.70 1873. Jan\u2019y to July terms, each T. 50; ent. slip. 20.\n.05 \u201c Fil. do. 5.................................................\n2.00 \u201c Aug. to Nov. terms, each T. fee 50................\n.50 \u201c Dec. T., T. fee 50.......................................\n1.00 1874. Jan\u2019y to Feb\u2019y T., T. fee, 50; reo. and ent......\n.45 \u201c Find. 10; serv\u2019g writ, 10; ent. judg. 25........\n.75 \u201c Doc. 10; ex. and fil. 45; doc. 10; ret. 10........\n.55 \u00ab Sat. 15: 2 Index, 20...................................\n.30 \u201c M. and Ec...............................................\n........ . \u00a721.00 Judge\u2019s fee, \u00a72.50, paid.\n\u201cI, John J. Healey, clerk of the Superior Court of Cook county, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy from my fee book.\n\u201cJohn J. Healey.\u201d\nMr. William H. King, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Rosenthal & Pence, for the appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0080-01",
  "first_page_order": 80,
  "last_page_order": 82
}