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

April 13, 1915 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 20,231
193 Ill. App. 48
Hugo Oppenheim and Bernard Strauss, trading as Oppenheim & Strauss, Defendants in Error, v. J. H. Mower, Plaintiff in Error

Hugo Oppenheim and Bernard Strauss, trading as Oppenheim & Strauss, Defendants in Error, v. J. H. Mower, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 20,231.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon.. John J. Rooney, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914. and reversed and remanded in rehearing opinion filed June 4, 1915.

Affirmed

in opinion filed April 13, 1915,

Statement of the Case.

The action in this case was started in the court below to recover for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered by Oppenheim & Strauss, a corporation. After a hearing, the trial court, on February 2, 1914, entered a finding against the defendant and in favor of Oppenheim & Strauss, a corporation, and upon this finding a judgment was entered on the same day. On February 5th, three days after judgment had been entered, the attorney for the plaintiff, on due notice given the defendant, the plaintiff in error here, appeared and moved the court upon his unsworn statement alone to enter an order amending the prcecipe, statement of claim, summons, record and entry of. judgment by striking from all the papers and record the words, “a corporation,” as a description of the plaintiff below, and inserting instead the words “Hugo Oppenheim and Bernard Strauss, a Co-partnership, trading as Oppenheim & Strauss.” The court sustained the motion and ordered the amendments and the judgment to be corrected.

Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error.

S. R. Clute, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

*49Abstract 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).