{
  "id": 2490601,
  "name": "John Adams v. Henry Pacini",
  "name_abbreviation": "Adams v. Pacini",
  "decision_date": "1905-01-23",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 11,718",
  "first_page": "428",
  "last_page": "430",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "119 Ill. App. 428"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "148 Ill. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3060831
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/148/0490-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 U. S., 303",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5701126
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/160/0303-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 Ill. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5260591
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/39/0009-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 257,
    "char_count": 3411,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3273771945777534
    },
    "sha256": "d87c9a309b8dc25c22cf904dc5b99dec1bd463c64625be5d5c2fe482423e86c7",
    "simhash": "1:b39d82029e0e160a",
    "word_count": 603
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:07:30.746032+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Adams v. Henry Pacini."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe chief objection made here to the judgment rendered in this suit of forcible entry and detainer in the County Court, is that it is too indefinite and uncertain. It reads: \u201cIt is considered by the court that the plaintiff should have and recover of and from the said defendant the right of possession of the premises in question, together with his costs and charges,\u201d etc. This is certainly an entry of judgment in a form not at all to be commended. It brings forcibly to the mind of the court the language of Judge Walker in Martin v. Barnhardt, 39 Ill. 9, forty years ago: \u201cWith the rapid advance in education and in all the branches of art and science which characterizes this age, it is a source of regret to see the equally rapid decline in the certainty and precision so necessary to the records of our courts of justice. * * * It is to be regretted also, because a slight degree only of attention on the part of the officers of the law could prevent all of the' inconvenience, delay and loss consequent to such imperfect records.\u201d This is sound doctrine, as well suited to these times as to those in which it was written. But we do not think the. law justifies us in interfering with this judgment for this cause. It ought not to have been entered in the form in which it appears, but having been so entered, it can be sustained. \u201cThe premises in question\u201d can refer to nothing but the premises described in the complaint before the justice, and in the transcript filed in the County Court. And the authorities are to the effect that a judgment, in this respect of the descriptions of premises, may be aided by intendments drawn from the pleadings and other parts of the record. Black on Judgments, Vol. 1, S. 117; Freeman on Judgments, S. 54; Haws v. Victoria Copper Mining Co., 160 U. S., 303-314.\nThe other errors are not well assigned. There was no motion for a new trial shown by the bill of exceptions, and the recitals of the judgment do not obviate this failure. Neither the sufficiency of the evidence nor the correctness of the instructions can be inquired into by us. East St. Louis Electric St. R. R. Co. v. Cauley, 148 Ill. 490. But it would be of no avail to the appellant if they could. We have read the evidence, and there can be no serious question of its sustain-ring the verdict for the appellee and the instruction to find it .given by the court.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Steele & Weissenbach, for appellant.",
      "Angelo S. Cella and Cecil Page, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Adams v. Henry Pacini.\nGen. No. 11,718.\n1. Forcible detainer\u2014when judgment entered in, sustained. A form of judgment entered in such cause, as follows: \u201cIt is considered by the court that the plaintiff should have and recover of and from the said defendant the right of possession of the premises in question, together with his costs and charges,\u201d though not approved in form, is sustained.\n2. Forcible detainer\u2014how judgment in, aided. A judgment in forcible detainer in respect to the description of the premises involved, may be aided by intendments drawn from the pleadings and other parts of the record.\nForcible entry and detainer proceeding. Appeal from the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Dwight C. Haven, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1904.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 23, 1905.\nRehearing denied March 14, 1905.\nSteele & Weissenbach, for appellant.\nAngelo S. Cella and Cecil Page, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0428-01",
  "first_page_order": 446,
  "last_page_order": 448
}