{
  "id": 4868642,
  "name": "Adelbert V. D. Broeck v. Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Broeck v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1883-10-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "556",
  "last_page": "557",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 Ill. App. 556"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill. 454",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2582399
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/13/0454-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Gil. 319",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilmer",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2592926
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/17/0067-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Gil. 572",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilmer",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ill. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5293726
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/42/0321-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ill. 104",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2752141
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/91/0104-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Nev. 194",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Nev.",
      "case_ids": [
        4648383
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nev/3/0194-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Ill. 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2621584
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/66/0536-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill. 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2574314
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/11/0452-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Gilm. 136",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "case_ids": [
        2562248
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/9/0136-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Gilm. 347",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "case_ids": [
        2467458
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/6/0347-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill. 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2717244
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/96/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5310050
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/71/0152-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill. 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2717244
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/96/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5310050
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/71/0152-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 2663,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.522980491440547e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4472345685018702
    },
    "sha256": "559ba01f674e0d0a22fcc353c6e88e63c335a88c79023a6fc7f8a8c74765d741",
    "simhash": "1:b940142c2c4f7d6c",
    "word_count": 486
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:34.030277+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Adelbert V. D. Broeck v. Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Baker, J.\nThis was an action on the case for personal injuries; and the acL damnum stated in the declaration was \u00a72,000. There was issue on a plea of not guilty, and a trial by jury. The verdict was, \u201cWe, the jury, find for thcp\u2019aintiff.\u201d Thereupon the court rendered judgment on the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendant for costs of suit, to which action of the court the plaintiff then and there excepted.\nThe jury by whom the issue was tried ought to have assessed the plaintiff\u2019s damages, and by reason of their not having assessed such damages, the verdict was void in law. There being no verdict sufficient to form the basis of a judgment, the court should have awarded a venire de novo. Clement v. Lewis, 3 Brad. & Bing. 297; Thompson v. Watterston, 14 La. An. 239; Long v. Linn, 71 Ill. 152; Hirth v. Lynch, 96 Ill. 409; 2d Tidd\u2019s Prac. 922; 2d Bouvier\u2019s Law Dic., title Venire Facias de Novo.\n\u25a0 The judgment is reversed and cause remanded tor a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Baker, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Burroughs & \"Warnock. for plaintiff in error;",
      "Mr. G. B. Burnett, for defendant in error;"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Adelbert V. D. Broeck v. Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway Company.\nVebdict\u2014Failure ob jury to assess damages.\u2014Where the ad damnum stated in the declaration was $2,000, and there was issue on a plea of not guilty and a trial by jury, and the verdict was, \u201c We, the jury, find for the plaintiff,\u201d and the court rendered judgment on the verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for costs of suit. Held, that there being no assessment of the damages by the jury, there was no verdict sufficient to form the basis of a judgment, and the court should have awarded a venire de novo.\nError to the Circuit Court of Madison county.\nOpinion filed October 10, 1883.\nMessrs. Burroughs & \"Warnock. for plaintiff in error;\nthat judgment is not warranted by the verdict, as there was no assessment of damages by the jury, cited Long v. Linn, 71 Ill. 152; Hirth v. Lynch, 96 Ill. 409; Frazier v. Laughlin, 1 Gilm. 347; Hinckley v. West, 4 Gilm. 136; Austin v. The People, 11 Ill. 452; Bodine v. Swisher, 66 Ill. 536; Knickerbocker Mining Co. v. Hall, 3 Nev. 194.\nMr. G. B. Burnett, for defendant in error;\nthat in the absence of any intervening motion by plaintiff, the court was bound to render judgment upon the verdict of the jury, cited Practice Act, Ch. 110, \u00a7 57; Railroad Co. v. McMath, 91 Ill. 104; Gill v. The People, 42 Ill. 321.\nWhere no exception is taken in the circuit court to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, the correctness of such decision can not be inquired into in the appellate court: Miller v. Dobson, 1 Gil. 572; Smith v. Kahill, 17 Ill. 67; Selby v. Hutchinson, 4 Gil. 319; Pottle v. McWhorter, 13 Ill. 454."
  },
  "file_name": "0556-01",
  "first_page_order": 560,
  "last_page_order": 561
}