{
  "id": 4787812,
  "name": "John A. Ambler et al. v. Mary S. Traver",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ambler v. Traver",
  "decision_date": "1878-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "614",
  "last_page": "615",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 Ill. App. 614"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill. 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5272636
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/55/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. 164",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        820168
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/67/0164-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Scam. 411",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        6105835
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/5/0426-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5314932
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/82/0334-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1786,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4130509153236347
    },
    "sha256": "0bf3b5a1d6df734b9163627305d8b2c8b368926d274bff95615498022c2c6e97",
    "simhash": "1:3fd06fa08a53a003",
    "word_count": 301
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:23:02.092512+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John A. Ambler et al. v. Mary S. Traver."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis was a suit in replevin by appellee against appellants, to recover certain personal property of which she claimed to be the owner.\nDefendants attempt to justify the talcing by showing that they were constables, and took the property on executions in their hands issued against W. H. Travel*, husband of appellee, \u2022and allege that the property in controversy was the property of defendant in said executions.\nOn the trial appellants failed to show that any judgments had been rendered against W. H. Travel*, upon which said executions were issued.\nWhen the officer is sued in trespass by the defendant in execution the production of the execution is a sufficient defense for his protection. But when the execution is levied upon property claimed by a third party, to justify, he must show that the execution is based on valid judgment. Johnson v. Holloway, 82 Ill. 334; Hartman v. Cochrane, Appellate Court, 3d District, May Term, 1878, (2 Bradwell, 592;) Jackson v. Hobson, 4 Scam. 411.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Wiley & Heal, for appellants;",
      "Messrs. O. B. & A. 0. Ficklin, for appellee;"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John A. Ambler et al. v. Mary S. Traver.\nlevy op execution\u2014Taking frofebty op another\u2014Justification \u2014What must be shown.\u2014Where an officer is sued in trespass by the defendant in execution, the production of the execution is a sufficient defense for his protection, but where the property levied upon is claimed by another, he must show that the execution is based upon a valid judgment.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Coles county; the Hon. J. B. Cunningham, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Wiley & Heal, for appellants;\nthat the evidence fails to show that the property belonged to appellee, cited Patton v. Gates, 67 Ill. 164.\nMessrs. O. B. & A. 0. Ficklin, for appellee;\nupon the question of ownership of property, cited Wilson et al. v. Loomis et al. 55 Ill. 352."
  },
  "file_name": "0614-01",
  "first_page_order": 610,
  "last_page_order": 611
}