{
  "id": 5155519,
  "name": "William Willerton v. Reuben Shoemaker",
  "name_abbreviation": "Willerton v. Shoemaker",
  "decision_date": "1895-06-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "126",
  "last_page": "128",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 126"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "115 Ill. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. 233",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill. 442",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2605544
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/50/0442-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Ill. 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5280386
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/22/0214-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 268,
    "char_count": 4496,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.516,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32749689267598225
    },
    "sha256": "9cb291ba5b7e7158eae758039212071a93b30e49f7221a90a95d9d51d2ebe17a",
    "simhash": "1:323beecc0828b062",
    "word_count": 790
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:36.351146+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Willerton v. Reuben Shoemaker."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Wall\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe first objection urged is that the court should have dismissed the suit because of the defect in the service of the summons before the justice of the peace.\nThis defect was waived by taking the appeal.\nAs was said in Swingley v. Haynes, 22 Ill. 214, u When the defendant files his appeal bond he thereby enters his appearance to the cause in the Circuit Court, and by so doing waives all defects in the process, the want of process, defects in the service or want of service before the justice.\u201d\nThe rule so stated was based upon Sec. 66 of the act in relation to justices and constables, as it then was\u2014Sec. 72 of the present act\u2014and has been repeatedly approved in subsequent cases.\nThe second objection is that the complaint is not sufficient. This objection should have been presented to the trial court, and the special ground thereof pointed out, so that it might have been obviated by amendment.\nGoing to trial waived the objection, and it can not be presented for the first time in this court. The evidence made out a case under the statute, and, while the complaint may be informal, we can not reverse for that reason. Had the defect been suggested below, the necessary amendment could have been made.\nThe case cited by appellant, Stolberg v. Ohnmacht, 50 Ill. 442, is not in point. There the fault was that no affidavit had been filed, and under the statute, as it then read, the court held that an affidavit was necessary to give jurisdiction of the subject-matter.\nHere the defect is that the complaint is informal.\nSo it may be, but it is sufficient to give the court to understand what the cause of action is, and under it, without objection or suggestion of informality, the plaintiff was permitted to prove a case within the statute.\nThe point must be overruled.\nThe third objection is that there was no demand for possession before suit was brought.\nThe case was one where the tenant held over after the termination of his lease, which was for a definite period, and under the statute no demand was necessary to end his tenancy. C. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 82 Ill. 233; Schreiber v. C. & E. R. R. Co., 115 Ill. 345.\nHor was it necessary under the forcible detainer act to make demand in such a case before bringing suit. Had the plaintiff\u2019s case been within the fifth or sixth clause of Sec. 2 of that act, a demand would have been necessary.\nThis objection must be overruled.\nThe point fourthly made, that there was a variance between the complaint and the proof, is disposed of by what has been said in reference to the second objection.\nWe find no error, and the judgment will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Wall"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Oscab A. DeLeuw, attorney for appellant.",
      "Morrison & Worthington, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Willerton v. Reuben Shoemaker.\n1. Waiver\u2014Defects in Service\u2014Taking an Appeal.\u2014A defect in the service of a summons in an action before a justice of the peace is waived by taking an appeal.\n2. Practice\u2014 Objections Must be Made in the Court Below.\u2014An objection that the complaint in an action of forcible detainer before a justice of the peace is not sufficient, should be made before going to trial. It can not be made for the first time in the Appellate Court.\n3. Same\u2014Informal Complaints.\u2014A defective complaint in forcible detainer, which is merely informal, is sufficient if no objection is made at the proper time in the court below.\n4. Demand\u2014When Unnecessary in Forcible Detainer.\u2014Where a tenant holds over after the termination of a lease for a definite period, under the statute no demand is necessary to terminate the tenancy.\nForcible Detainer.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Morgan County; the Hon. Cyrus Epler, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1894.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 3, 1895.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis was a proceeding in forcible detainer, instituted by appellee against appellant for the recovery of the possession of forty acres of land situate near Jacksonville, in Morgan county, Ill. The case was originally brought before a justice of the peace, where a motion to dismiss was made, because the purported copy of the summons left with appellant was not a true copy. The motion was overruled, judgment given for Shoemaker, and Willerton appealed to the Circuit Court, where the motion to dismiss was renewed but overruled. The case was heard by the court, a jury being waived. Judgment was given for plaintiff and defendant appealed to this court.\nOscab A. DeLeuw, attorney for appellant.\nMorrison & Worthington, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0126-01",
  "first_page_order": 124,
  "last_page_order": 126
}