{
  "id": 2576032,
  "name": "C. H. Layman v. George W. Detharding, Adm'r",
  "name_abbreviation": "Layman v. Detharding",
  "decision_date": "1903-03-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "594",
  "last_page": "597",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "106 Ill. App. 594"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill. 117",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        8499954
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/60/0117-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 Ill. 353",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2861736
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/112/0353-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 Ill. 53",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2790523
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/105/0053-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2651540
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/84/0073-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ill. 351",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5216311
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/36/0351-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 375,
    "char_count": 6504,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3653377088780079
    },
    "sha256": "41ebcdc93ba4cd103539c7d1a653bea72c0b1915bf3544eabe4a77efa85bedf7",
    "simhash": "1:1b0e86a8bac5bdc3",
    "word_count": 1161
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:58:38.770440+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. H. Layman v. George W. Detharding, Adm\u2019r."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Bigelow\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe suit in which this appeal was taken was brought by Jane Fitts in her lifetime against appellant in a justice\u2019s court of Franklin county, to recover upon a promissory note executed by appellant to deceased.\nThe amount of the claim indorsed on the summons was $115. Judgment was rendered in that court against appellant for $114.95 and costs. On the docket of the justice appears the following: \u201c For value received I hereby assign the above judgment to A. C. Terhune.\u201d Signed \u201cJane Fitts, by O. S. Shinn, her agent.\u201d\nIn the meantime, before the case was tried, Jane Fitts died intestate, and appellee was appointed administrator of her estate, and on the suggestion of her death to the court and on filing a certified copy of his letters of administration appellee was substituted as plaintiff in the case.\nIt being shown to the court before the trial that appellant had not paid the docket fee in the case, and that appellee had paid it, a rule was entered against appellant to refund the money to appellee, which was done without objection or exception by appellant.\nA jury was waived, and a trial by the court resulted in a judgment against appellant for $118.10, and the defendant in the case brings it here and assigns on the record the following errors:\n\u201c 1st. It was error in the court to allow the administrator to be substituted as plaintiff.\n\u201c 2d. In entering a rule on defendant to refund a docket fee of $4 to plaintiff, when there was no evidence before the court to show that plaintiff had advanced or paid the same, because no such fee is allowed by law.\n\u201c3d. In rendering judgment for $118.10, when the demand on summons was only $115.\n\u201c 4th. In rendering judgment in favor of Jane Fitts, or her administrator, when the transcript of the justice\u2019s judgment showed that it had been assigned to A. C. Terhune.\n\u201c 5th. In assessing plaintiff\u2019s damages at more than was proven.\n\u201c 6th. In rendering judgment against defendant.\n\u201c 7th. In overruling defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial.\n\u201c 8th. In overruling defendant\u2019s motion in arrest of judgment.\u201d\nAs to the first assignment of error, it is perhaps but just to counsel to give the principal' portion of his argument to sustain his contention, which is as follows:\n\u201c We insist that this case, after it was appealed to the County Court, continued to be in the same condition and governed by the same rules of practice as it was or would have been had the trial been before the justice. The only authority for making amendments in justice\u2019s court are found in section 38, chapter 79, Starr & Curtis\u2019 Statute, which provides that the justice may, at the request of either party at any time before trial, permit the summons and. other papers to be amended so as to make the same conform to the true names of plaintiff and defendant. This authority is limited to the true names of the parties at the time of the commencement of the suit, and not to any change of parties or change of legal rights or liabilities that may afterward intervene.\u201d\nIn view of the fact that Jane Fitts\u2019 death was suggested to the court, and a certified copy of the letters of administration of her estate to appellee was introduced in evidence, and that section 10 of chapter 1 of the Eevised Statutes has always been supposed to embrace all cases like this, and in view of the remaining portion of counsel\u2019s printed argument on this point (which we think it might not be just to him to quote), we are not able to escape the conclusion that the . error was not assigned in good faith, and hence we dismiss it without further comment.\nThe second error may be disposed of by saying that no objection or exception was taken by appellant to the rule on him to refund t\u00f3 appellee the docket fee that appellant should have paid to get the benefit of his appeal. Appellant paid over the money without objection or protest; had he not done so doubtless his appeal would have been summarily dismissed, as it should have been. Edwards v. Duling, 36 Ill. 351; Garrity v. Bash, 84 Ill. 73; Meserve v. Delaney, 105 Ill. 53; Meserve v. Delaney, 112 Ill. 353.\nAs to the third error, it is true the amount of plaintiff\u2019s claim indorsed on the summons was $115, while the judgment of the County Corfrt was for $118.10.\u00ab The difference between the sums was the interest that accrued on the note after the commencement of the suit, and if it was error to give judgment for it, appellant alone is responsible-for the error, and therefore can not complain. But it was not error. Dowling v. Stewart et al., 3 Scammon, 193; Welch v. Karstens, 60 Ill. 117.\nIn regard to the fourth error, the transcript of the judgment of the justice does not show that the person who purported to assign the judgment as the agent of deceased had any authority, to assign it, and besides, whether the judgment was properly assigned or not does not concern appellant.\nThere is nothing, of more merit in the remaining errors - than in those we have passed upon.\nAppellant does not even pretend that he does not owe the debt, and his claimed errors seem frivolous to be urged in a case so free from error as the record in this case is, for. there is no error whatever in it, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Bigelow"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. C. Payne, attorney for appellant.",
      "A. C. Terhune, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. H. Layman v. George W. Detharding, Adm\u2019r.\n1. Statutes\u2014Authority for Malang Amendments in Justice\u2019s Court, Under Sec. 38, Ch. 79. It. S.\u2014The authority for making amendments in a justice\u2019s court under Sec. 38, Ch. 79, R. S., which provides that the justice may at the request of either party at any time before trial permit the summons and other papers to be amended so as to make the same conform to the true names of plaintiff and defendant, is limited to the true names of the parties at the time of the commencement of the suit, and not to any change of parties or change of legal rights or liabilities that may afterward intervene,\n2. Waiver\u2014Of Error in Ruling of Trial Court by Not Objecting.\u2014 Where rulings of the trial court are not objected to, any error in them is waived.\n3. Interest\u2014On Note, Accruing After Commencement of Trial, Allowable.\u2014It is not error to include in the judgment, interest on a note accruing after the commencement of the trial.\nAssumpsit, on a promissory note. Appeal from the County Court of Franklin County; the Hon. W. H. Hart, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the August term, 1902.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 2, 1903.\nC. C. Payne, attorney for appellant.\nA. C. Terhune, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0594-01",
  "first_page_order": 618,
  "last_page_order": 621
}