{
  "id": 2553646,
  "name": "V. T. Malott, Receiver, v. Willis S. Howell",
  "name_abbreviation": "Malott v. Howell",
  "decision_date": "1903-12-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "233",
  "last_page": "234",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "111 Ill. App. 233"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "177 Ill. 76",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. 279",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 Ill. 46",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5438243
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/134/0046-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 Ill. 98",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5581769
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/194/0098-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3301,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.259244762335987e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4327213671530657
    },
    "sha256": "31c94c81eee0c4ddc13cda056a78ab4857747222ec6a76d6b68138d7f048f1f3",
    "simhash": "1:dd634cfd8c5fb242",
    "word_count": 585
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:54:24.452659+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "V. T. Malott, Receiver, v. Willis S. Howell."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Puterbaugh\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an action in debt under the statute, by defendant in error against plaintiff in error as receiver, to recover damages in double the value of certain repairs claimed to have been made by him to the right of way fence on the line between his lands and the right of way of the railroad of which plaintiff in error is such receiver.\nJudgment ivas rendered by the Circuit Court against the defendant who sues out this writ of error.\nWe find no error in the rulings of the trial court as to the competency of the evidence offered or in passing upon the instructions, and are of opinion that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.\nThe amount claimed in the declaration was $60 debt and $35 damages. The jury returned a verdict for $50 damages. This is urged as error. The defect was but technical and formal. Inasmuch as there were no damages proved or claimed on the trial, the court very properly put the ver- ' diet in proper form and rendered judgment for $50 debt, being double the amount which the evidence showed defendant in error had expended in repairing the fence. The authority rests in the court to put a verdict in form where it is, on its face, good in substance, and does not depend upon the consent or knowledge of the jury. Colony v. Pease, 194 Ill. 98.\nIt appears from the reeprd, however, that a personal judgment was rendered against plaintiff in error, instead of in his official capacity as receiver, and that execution was awarded thereon. This was error. A personal judgment and execution cannot properly be awarded against a receiver, but it should be against him in his official capacity, to be paid in due course of the administration of his trust. McNulta v. Ench, 134 Ill. 46; McNulta v. Lockridge, 137 Ill. 279; Bartlett v. Cicero, 177 Ill. 76.\nThis error will necessitate the reversal of the judgment, but as we find that no error intervened up to and including the motion for a new trial, no occasion exists for awarding a venire facias de novo.\nThe judgment will therefore be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the Circuit Court to enter judgment upon the verdict of the jury, in conformity with the foregoing ruling, as well as for the costs of that court. McNulta v. Ench, supra.\nReversed cmd remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Puterbaugh"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. J. Miller, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Eden & Martin, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "V. T. Malott, Receiver, v. Willis S. Howell.\n1. Verdict\u2014power of court to correct. The court has authority to put a verdict in form, where, on its face, it is good in substance and does not depend upon the consent or knowledge of the jury.\n2. Receiver\u2014form of judgment against. A personal judgment and execution should not be awarded against a receiver; they should run against him in his official capacity, to be paid in due course of administration.\n8. Venire facias de novo\u2014token not awarded. A venire facias de novo will not be awarded, notwithstanding a reversal and rem andment, where no error has intervened until after the overruling of the motion for a new trial.\nAction of debt to recover penalty. Error to the Circuit Court of Moultrie County; the Hon. Edward P. Vail, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1903.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 15, 1903.\nE. J. Miller, for plaintiff in error.\nEden & Martin, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0233-01",
  "first_page_order": 251,
  "last_page_order": 252
}