{
  "id": 5633711,
  "name": "W. G. Scott, Defendant in Error, v. J. M. Simmons et al., Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Scott v. Simmons",
  "decision_date": "1931-01-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "274",
  "last_page": "275",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "260 Ill. App. 274"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "131 Ill. 604",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5418527
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/131/0604-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ill. 413",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5267570
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/47/0413-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2579479
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/12/0152-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 123,
    "char_count": 1356,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.16359949943027566
    },
    "sha256": "ff9c8d3bfadfc3b96430e8ceac8e29880c2f04c0e4241a279ad9c5cb35965f33",
    "simhash": "1:7c2121f920bb6675",
    "word_count": 232
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:10:14.648113+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. G. Scott, Defendant in Error, v. J. M. Simmons et al., Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barry\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn an action of assumpsit defendant in error recovered a judgment against plaintiffs in error by default. The sheriff\u2019s return on the summons shows that it was served by reading only.\nPlaintiffs in error contend that the service in that regard was insufficient to give the court jurisdiction over them. The statute provides that service of summons, except when otherwise expressly provided by statute, shall be made by leaving a copy thereof with the defendant in person. Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 110, \u00b6 2. When a statute requires that the service of a summons shall be made by leaving a copy with the defendant, service by reading is not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction, where the defendant does not appear and plead. Sconce v. Whitney, 12 Ill. 150; Wilhite v. Pearce, 47 Ill. 413; Greenwood v. Murphy, 131 Ill. 604-607.\nThere is no escape from the conclusion that the court failed to acquire jurisdiction of the plaintiffs in error and for that reason the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barry"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank J. Burns and Jambs T. Burns, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "B. F. Anderson, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. G. Scott, Defendant in Error, v. J. M. Simmons et al., Plaintiffs in Error.\nHeard in this court at the February term, 1930,\nOpinion filed January 19, 1931.\nFrank J. Burns and Jambs T. Burns, for plaintiffs in error.\nB. F. Anderson, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0274-01",
  "first_page_order": 302,
  "last_page_order": 303
}