{
  "id": 2624711,
  "name": "William Moorehead, Defendant in Error, v. George W. Briggs, Administrator, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moorehead v. Briggs",
  "decision_date": "1909-11-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 14,634",
  "first_page": "361",
  "last_page": "363",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 Ill. App. 361"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 304,
    "char_count": 4906,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.2326328743275565e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9143654707282162
    },
    "sha256": "231e5e060b7c163b6902e5f4f9d537fd1e685b195fcd935b3d8e742faebcdfd8",
    "simhash": "1:8def9e64fc4a849f",
    "word_count": 795
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:41.765695+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Moorehead, Defendant in Error, v. George W. Briggs, Administrator, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Chytraus\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nWilliam Moorehead, defendant in error, brought suit in replevin against George W. Briggs, \u201cas administrator,\u201d in the Municipal Court. The bailiff to whom the writ of replevin was issued, being unable to find the goods described in the writ, made a return to that effect and of demand and service upon Briggs, \u201cindividually or as administrator.\u201d There was a trial by jury, verdict for plaintiff, and a judgment in trover for $200 against George W. Briggs.\nPrior to the commencement of the trial plaintiff moved for and obtained an order which, so far as now material, is as follows: \u201cIt is' ordered by the court that leave he, and the same is, hereby granted the plaintiff to amend the affidavit of replevin herein by striking out the words \u2018individually or\u2019.\u201d These words appeared in the affidavit before the word \u201cadministrator.\u201d\nFollowing decisions of the Supreme Court, we have, not long since, condemned the practice of trial courts permitting amendments of pleadings by erasures or interlineations. Such practice becomes still more objectionable and dangerous when an affidavit is involved. No trial court should allow erasures or interlineations in an affidavit. The purpose of the law, in requiring an affidavit instead of an unsworn statement, is practically nullified when, as in this instance, an affidavit is allowed to be amended without being again sworn to before an officer authorized to administer oaths. It is the duty of the courts, generally, to permit amendments of pleadings and the filing of new or additional affidavits. But the interests of parties and the public should be safeguarded by requiring that court records and court documents should, when amended, be amended in a proper manner. Am affidavit should be amended only by the filing of an amended affidavit, sworn to. Am affidavit merely altered is, in the true sense, neither an amended affidavit nor an affidavit amended.\nThe controversy herein is in regard to the ownership of the household furniture and goods which plaintiff, William Moorehead, and his deceased wife, Sarah A. Moorehead, had used in their household for somewhere about ten to fifteen years. Plaintiff is a workingman who, with his wife and family, came here from Ireland in 1891 and the furniture has been purchased since then, from time to time. Defendant is one of plaintiff\u2019s several stepchildren. Mrs. Moorehead died in 1906 or 1907, the date is not shown, and, apparently, some time thereafter defendant, Briggs, caused himself to be appointed administrator of the estate of his mother, Mrs. Moorehead. Subsequently he, in the absence of the other members of the family, took away the household goods and furniture. For these goods the replevin writ herein was issued. We find no reason whatever, so far as the merits are concerned, for disturbing the verdict of the jury approved, as it is, by the judgment of the trial judge.\nThe argument is made on behalf of plaintiff in error that the judgment runs against George W. Briggs individually while the suit was brought and prosecuted against George W. Briggs \u201cas administrator of the estate of Sarah A. Moorehead, deceased.\u201d We find nothing in the record to support the assertion in the statement of facts on behalf of plaintiff in error that the suit proceeded against Briggs as administrator of said deceased. True, the affidavit originally named Briggs \u201cindividually or as administrator\u201d party defendant and the writ ran against him \u201cindividually or as administrator,\u201d but, nothing being- said or stated as to whom or what he was administrator for or of, the quoted verbiage was entirely superfluous and meaningless. The suit was at all stages conducted against him in his individual capacity and the verdict and judgment are, in that respect, perfectly proper.\nAs we find no reversible error in the record the judgment must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Chytraus"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles G. Hutchinson, for plaintiff in error.",
      "M. W. Cagney, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Moorehead, Defendant in Error, v. George W. Briggs, Administrator, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 14,634.\n1. Amendments and jeofails\u2014how affidavits cannot Be amended. It is improper to permit an affidavit to be amended by erasures or interlineations; if an affidavit is so amended without being resworn to, it ceases to be either an affidavit or an amended affidavit.\n2. Parties\u2014when action is against individual rather than against him in a representative capacity. A party sued merely \u201cas administrator\u201d is sued in his individual capacity; the words \u201cas administrator\u201d being merely descriptio personas and regarded as surplusage.\nReplevin. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles N. Goodnow, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 19, 1909.\nPetition for rehearing withdrawn February 17, 1910.\nCharles G. Hutchinson, for plaintiff in error.\nM. W. Cagney, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0361-01",
  "first_page_order": 379,
  "last_page_order": 381
}