{
  "id": 5098067,
  "name": "Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Pairpoint Manufacturing Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Illinois Central Railroad v. Pairpoint Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1894-10-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "231",
  "last_page": "232",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 Ill. App. 231"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "46 Ill. App. 279",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5146213
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/46/0279-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill. 319",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5284031
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/24/0319-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2153,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.499,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.945995428916779e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4210898009883974
    },
    "sha256": "9a0a8a2e7a3959a23ed0087cbfac5e17733bc3f8cc9bf38931ffff798992a867",
    "simhash": "1:033ddd99f1b9aee3",
    "word_count": 356
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:31.699098+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Pairpoint Manufacturing Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis writ of error is prosecuted from a judgment by default against the railroad company. The return of service of summons is as follows:\n\u201c Also served this writ on the within nam'ed defendant, The Illinois Central Kailroad Company, by delivering a copy thereof to James Fentress, general solicitor for said company, this 15th day of August, 1892. The president not found in my county.\nJames H. Gilbert, Sheriff.\nBy D. W. \u00a1Nickerson,.Deputy Sheriff.\u201d\nWhat the duties of the general solicitor may be, we can not know judicially. If he is an agent the sheriff must take the responsibility of so saying. Ill. & Miss. Tel. v. Kennedy, 24 Ill. 319.\nUnless the statutory word is used to describe the person to whom a copy was delivered, we can not know that he had the statutory position. Imperial Bldg. Co. v. Cook, 46 Ill. App. 279.\nThat case is also authority for reversing without remanding, which is now done.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. Y. Gwin, attorney for the plaintiff in error; James Fentress, of counsel.",
      "Lyman & Jackson, attorneys for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Pairpoint Manufacturing Company.\n1. Service oe Process\u2014General Solicitor of a Corporation.\u2014A general solicitor of a corporation is a person not named in the statute providing for service of process upon corporations. The court can not know judicially what his duties are. If he is an agent the officer making the service must take the responsibility of saying so.\n2. Same\u2014An Insufficient Return.\u2014A summons issued against the Illinois Central Rrailroad Company was returned by the sheriff, as follows: \u201c Served this writ on the within named defendant, the Illinois Central Railroad Company, by delivering a copj thereof to James Fen-tress, general solicitor of said company, this fifteenth day of August, 1892, the president not found in my county.\u201d Held, not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit. In the Circuit Court of Cook County the Hon. Samuel P. McConnell, Judge, presiding. Error by the defendant. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and reversed.\nOpinion filed October 22, 1894.\nC. Y. Gwin, attorney for the plaintiff in error; James Fentress, of counsel.\nLyman & Jackson, attorneys for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0231-01",
  "first_page_order": 227,
  "last_page_order": 228
}