Oppenheim v. Mower

Appellate Court of Illinois

Oppenheim v. Mower

193 Ill. App. 48, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 595

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 13, 1915

DocketGen. No. 20,231

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 193 Ill. App. 48 (Oppenheim v. Mower) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oppenheim v. Mower, 193 Ill. App. 48, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 595 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. Judgments, § 84*—when amendment not allowable. The amendment of a judgment three days after its entry so as to make it run in favor of “Hugo Oppenheim and Bernard Strauss, a Co-partnership, trading as Oppenheim & Strauss” instead of being in favor of “Oppenheim & Strauss, a corporation” is not an amendment for a defect or imperfection in matter of form and is, therefore, not authorized by the Statute of Amendments and Jeofails (J. & A. H 301).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. Judgments, § 84*—when amendment not allowable. The amendment of a judgment three days after its entry so as to make it run in favor of “Hugo Oppenheim and Bernard Strauss, a Co-partnership, trading as Oppenheim & Strauss” instead of being in favor of “Oppenheim & Strauss, a corporation” is not an amendment for a defect or imperfection in matter of form and is, therefore, not authorized by the Statute of Amendments and Jeofails (J. & A. H 301).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 Ill. App. 48, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oppenheim-v-mower-illappct-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack