{
  "id": 5143106,
  "name": "George Agnew v. Samuel Wilson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Agnew v. Wilson",
  "decision_date": "1892-04-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "205",
  "last_page": "206",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "46 Ill. App. 205"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 125,
    "char_count": 1451,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "sha256": "46bfc6deef93d953e76ddaa24169ee1b8057932f07d13ec5e83840ba6be53e85",
    "simhash": "1:888458a2887906ba",
    "word_count": 241
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:05.291643+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George Agnew v. Samuel Wilson"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Wall.\nThis was replevin by the appellee against appellant for a mare levied upon by appellant as constable, by virtue of an execution in his hands against one Edwin Wilson, a son of the appellee.\nThe plaintiff recovered in the Circuit Court. It appeared that the animal belonged to the plaintiff and was in the possession of his two sons, Samuel and Edwin, who were operating his farm. At the time of the levy Edwin was driving the mare, but the constable had been informed before that she was the plaintiff\u2019s property. He proposed a trade, and after having obtained from Edwin a statement implying that he owned the horse, he said he would make the levy, whereupon he was told that the plaintiff was the owner. \u25a0 nevertheless he levied, and this suit followed. We think the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover.\nHo error appears in the record and the judgment will be affirmed.\nJxodgment a/ffw-med.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Wall."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Agnew & Vose, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. Prentiss & Baily, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George Agnew v. Samuel Wilson\n' Replevin\u2014Against Constable\u2014Property in Plaintiff.\nIn an action of replevin, brought by appellee against appellant, a constable, to recover property levied on by defendant as the property of a third party, this court holds that the evidence clearly showed that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.\n[Opinion filed April 11, 1892.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of McDonough County; the Hon. C. J. Scofield, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Agnew & Vose, for appellant.\nMessrs. Prentiss & Baily, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0205-01",
  "first_page_order": 203,
  "last_page_order": 204
}