{
  "id": 5000185,
  "name": "Rose L. Hackett v. George W. Jones",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hackett v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1890-02-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "562",
  "last_page": "563",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 Ill. App. 562"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "5 Ill. App. 104",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4761671
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/5/0104-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill. App. 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6045393
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/15/0477-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. 378",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2578939
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/12/0378-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill. 224",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        436527
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/15/0224-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ill. 437",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        425012
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/45/0437-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. 320",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        428225
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/38/0320-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        428243
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/38/0493-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 2361,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1662354085848005e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5852175165424702
    },
    "sha256": "2762a679a4f60d7d74d54344e9a5e1019eca1e0c802582225de6e3860e647604",
    "simhash": "1:060e04c518ecbc3b",
    "word_count": 413
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:16:31.539979+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Rose L. Hackett v. George W. Jones."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Phillips, J.\nThe pleas of non eepit and non detinet admit the property in plaintiff, and put in issue the taking and detention only. The verdict of not guilty was responsive only to the pleas of non oepit and non detinet. Hanford v. Obrecht, 38 Ill. 493; Bourk v. Riggs, 38 Ill. 320; Underwood v. White, 45 Ill. 437; Ingalls v. Bulkley, 15 Ill. 224.\nThere was no finding as to the six special pleas, and it was error to enter judgment on a verdict finding on but part of the issues, and silent as to others. Vase et al. v. Hart, 12 Ill. 378; Nelson v. Bowen, 15 Ill. App. 477; Mattson v. Hirsch, 5 Ill. App. 104.\nThe verdict of not guilty does not authorize the awarding of a writ retorno hdbendo. Hanford v. Obrecht, supra.\nHumerous other questions of law and fact are presented by this record which we deem it unnecessary to consider, as, for' the errors indicated, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Phillips, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Callahan, Jones & Lowe, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. Robb & Bbadbebby, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Rose L. Hackett v. George W. Jones.\nReplevin\u2014Pleading\u2014Form of Verdict\u2014Award of Writ of Retorno Habendo Unauthorized.\n1. In replevin against a sheriff, for property levied on by him, where the pleas are non eepit, non detinet, property in another and special pleas, a verdict of not guilty is responsive to the pleas of non eepit and non detinet only and does not warrant an award of a writ of retorno habendo.\n2. Judgment can not be entered on a verdict finding on part of the issues and silent as to others.\n[Opinion filed February 4, 1890.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Crawford County; the Hon. Wm. C. Jones, Judge, presiding.\nThis is an action of replevin brought by appellant against appellee, who is the sheriff of Crawford county, Illinois, to recover certain property levied on by him as such sheriff.\nTo the plaintiff\u2019s declaration the defendant filed \u00a1deas of non eepit, non detinet, property in Charles FT. Hackett, and filed special pleas in which the recovery of five separate judgments against Charles FT. Hackett is alleged, and issuing executions thereon, which came to the hands of appellee as sheriff, and by him levied on the property in declaration described as the property of Charles FT. Hackett. The verdict of the jury was not guilty.\nJudgment was entered thereon and writ of retorno habendo awarded.\nMessrs. Callahan, Jones & Lowe, for appellant.\nMessrs. Robb & Bbadbebby, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0562-01",
  "first_page_order": 558,
  "last_page_order": 559
}