{
  "id": 2840408,
  "name": "Alex Hamilton and Marie Hamilton, Appellees, v. Earle Sampson, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hamilton v. Sampson",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "316",
  "last_page": "317",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 Ill. App. 316"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 135,
    "char_count": 1484,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4699768210424623
    },
    "sha256": "daa2439a2ccd441dcde1d10661bbcba8ab4319a74b32fdd33ab557d670562491",
    "simhash": "1:03834b9544258c48",
    "word_count": 243
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:47:41.859813+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Alex Hamilton and Marie Hamilton, Appellees, v. Earle Sampson, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Philbrick\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Philbrick"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Watkins & Golden, for appellant.",
      "Thomas P. Reep, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Alex Hamilton and Marie Hamilton, Appellees, v. Earle Sampson, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Menard county; the Hon. Gut R. Williams, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the April term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 16, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Alex Hamilton and Marie Hamilton, partners, against Earle Sampson to recover damages for the loss of seventy-four turkeys belonging to plaintiffs and alleged to have been killed by defendant while they were foraging on an adjoining farm belonging to defendant. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for two hundred and eighty-five dollars, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Animals, \u00a7 28*\u2014right of owner of farm to hill or injure trespassing turheys. An owner of a farm has a right to drive turkeys belonging to another off his premises, but the mere fact that they are trespassing on his place gives him no right to kill or injure them.\n2. Animals, \u00a7 43*\u2014when evidence sufficient to sustain recovery for hilling trespassing turheys. In an action to recover for turkeys killed by defendant while they were foraging on defendant\u2019s adjoining farm, evidence held sufficient to sustain a verdict for plaintiffs, it appearing that no serious damage was done to defendant\u2019s farm or his crops thereon by reason of the trespass.\nWatkins & Golden, for appellant.\nThomas P. Reep, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0316-01",
  "first_page_order": 340,
  "last_page_order": 341
}