{
  "id": 5160659,
  "name": "Eilert R. Oeltjen, George D. Warnsing, Harmon Warnsing and Homer J. Tice v. The People, etc., for the use of the County of Menard",
  "name_abbreviation": "Oeltjen v. People ex rel. County of Menard",
  "decision_date": "1895-11-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "54",
  "last_page": "54",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 54"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. App. 138",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5781538
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/56/0138-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1645,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15588225413914092
    },
    "sha256": "6623c1befef363f0d614a273d639b9138a7bd9cdf90d1c7d0148d8400a922076",
    "simhash": "1:14454e0661a5aca0",
    "word_count": 282
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:02.966731+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Eilert R. Oeltjen, George D. Warnsing, Harmon Warnsing and Homer J. Tice v. The People, etc., for the use of the County of Menard."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Wall\ndelivered the opinion op the Court.\nThis case was here at a former term. 56 Ill. App. 138.\nThe judgment, which was for the defendants, was reversed upon the merits for reasons stated in the opinion then filed.\nAnother trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiffs, from which the present appeal is prosecuted.\nThe evidence and the defense thereon, so far as discussed in the former opinion, seem to be precisely as before, and we are not disposed to modify the views then expressed.\nThere also appears in this record the official report of the treasurer, filed December 22, 1893, showing the amount in his hands Bovember 30, 1893.\nAccording to repeated rulings of the Supreme Court this report is binding upon the sureties as well as the principal. Beither he nor they can contradict it.\nHowever, as we held in the former opinion, the facts set up by way of defense do not amount to a contradiction of the report, even if contradiction were admissible. The judgment will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Wall"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. W. Bransom, attorney for appellants.",
      "T. W. McBeely and Chas. Busbaum, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Eilert R. Oeltjen, George D. Warnsing, Harmon Warnsing and Homer J. Tice v. The People, etc., for the use of the County of Menard.\n1. County Treasurer\u2014Official Report Binding upon His Sureties. \u2014The official report of a county treasurer is binding upon him as well as the sureties upon his official bond. Neither can contradict it.\nDebt, upon a county treasurer\u2019s bond. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Menard County; the Hon. Cyrus Epler, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 15, 1895.\nB. W. Bransom, attorney for appellants.\nT. W. McBeely and Chas. Busbaum, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0054-01",
  "first_page_order": 52,
  "last_page_order": 52
}