{
  "id": 5192016,
  "name": "Emma Lund (formerly Emma Erland) v. John J. Hennessey",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lund v. Hennessey",
  "decision_date": "1896-12-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "233",
  "last_page": "236",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 233"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill. 59",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        436543
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/15/0059-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5440519
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/137/0360-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 Ill. 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2963605
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/129/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 Ill. 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5391479
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/122/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 Ill. 628",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2781304
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/106/0628-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 411,
    "char_count": 6933,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6024387759243077e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6841174910197467
    },
    "sha256": "ca58aa569039ff1175c36b7cd015cb1a202d72727ea4de037eb8ba26e6db4627",
    "simhash": "1:83c347545c2f7fcc",
    "word_count": 1217
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Emma Lund (formerly Emma Erland) v. John J. Hennessey."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nMo judicial person, whether a chancellor sitting in a court of equity, a judge of a common law court of record, a justice of the peace, or other inferior magistrate, member of a court martial, or juror, who is a part of the court, is, for any judicial act within his jurisdiction, however erroneous or mistaken, answerable in a civil suit to a party aggrieved. Bishop on Non-Contract Law, Secs. 771,781; Cooley on Torts, Second Ed., 472; Webb\u2019s Pollock on Torts, 138-327; Am. Ed. of Addison on Torts, Sec. 883; Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. 12, p. 33.\nThe only distinction in this respect between judges of courts of superior and inferior jurisdiction is that, in the case of the latter, the jurisdiction must be made to appear. In the present case it appears that the justice of the peace had jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and also as to the person concerning whom he acted. Appellee is, therefore, not liable for a mistake, if any there was, in the form of the warrant issued by him.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.\nGary, J.\nWe ought not to go into the merits of this case.\nThe abstract shows that the appellant proceeded below upon the arrest as the trespass complained of (with the previous interview in the street, Hennessey had no connection), and the appellant could not pursue two jointly for a separate trespass by one.\nThe abstract does not show who made the complaint, nor who issued the warrant that was put in evidence, and therefore does not show that either of the defendants below had any connection with the arrest. The fact that the appellant was taken before Hennessey is no proof that he issued the warrant, as that may have been done under Sec. 349, Ch. 3, Div. 7, of the Criminal Code; Ch. 38 Hurd R. S., 1895. Sec. 164, Ch. 79, same edition, does not give a justice exclusive jurisdiction of the offense charged. Hankins v. People, 106 Ill. 628; Kennedy v. People, 122 Ill. 649.\nWe are under no duty to look beyond the abstract for the facts of a case. Chapman v. Chapman, 129 Ill. 386; Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Ry. v. Wolf, 137 Ill. 360.\nThe verdict disposing of the case as to Hennessey, without mention of Hartung, was an end of the case as to him. Wilderman v. Sandusky, 15 Ill. 59.\nThe principle of that case is not affected by which way the verdict may be as to the defendant named in it.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman Gary, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pope & Small, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Masterson & Haft, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Emma Lund (formerly Emma Erland) v. John J. Hennessey.\n1. Judicial Officer\u2014Not Liable for Erroneous Judicial Act within his Jurisdiction.\u2014No judicial person\u2014whether a chancellor sitting in a \u25a0court of equity, a judge of a common law court of record, a justice of the peace or other inferior magistrate, a member of a court martial or juror, who is a part of the court\u2014is, for any judicial act within his jurisdiction, however erroneous or mistaken, answerable in a civil suit to a party aggrieved. The only distinction between judges of superior and inferior jurisdiction, is that in the case of the latter the jurisdiction must be made to appear.\nTrespass, for false imprisonment. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Nathaniel C. Sears, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 14, 1896.\nStatement of the Case.\nOn May 21, 1893, Emma Lund, the appellant, formerly Emma Erland, was a captain in the Salvation Army. In that capacity she was leading a small band of fellow-workers along Wentworth avenue, near 54th street, for the purpose of bringing in converts. On May 22d she was arrested, at the instance of one Hartung, a physician, and co-defendant. Said Hartung made a complaint to J. J. Hennessey, justice of the peace and appellee. This complaint was as follows:\n\u201c State of Illinois, I County of Cook, >ss. City of Chicago. )\nThe complaint and information of C. J. Hartung, of Chicago, in said county, made before J. J. Hennessey, esquire, one of the justices of the peace in and for said county, on the 21st day of May, 1893. Said complainant, being duly sworn, upon his oath says, that on or about, to wit, the day and year, and in the county aforesaid, Emma Erland, Huida Duhlberg and John Karloon, did willfully and unlawfully disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood by loud and unusual noises, contrary to the forms of the statute in such case made and provided. That this complainant has just and reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe, that the said Erland, Duhlberg and Karloon committed said offense, and therefore prays that they may be arrested and dealt with according to law.\nChristian J. Hartung, M. D.,\n5304 So. Ashland Ave.\nSubscribed and sworn to before me, this 21st day of May, A. D. 1893.\nJ. J. Hennessey,\nJustice of the Peace.\u201d\nHpon this the following warrant was issued:\n\u201c State of Illinois, ) City of Chicago, ]\u25a0 ss. County of Cook, j\nThe People of the State of Illinois, to all sheriffs, coroners, constables and police officers within said State\u2014greeting: Whereas, complaint in writing, under oath, has been this day entered before the undersigned, a justice of the peace within and for said county, by C. J. Hartung, that on or about the 21st day of May, A. D. 1893, the offense of disturbing the peace was committed.\nThat said offense was committed in said county and State, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and that said complainant has just and reasonable grounds to believe that Emma Erland committed said offense of disturbing the peace.\nWe therefore hereby command you forthwith to arrest the said Emma Erland and bring her before me, at my office in the Eighth District police court room in said city, or in case of my absence or inability to act, before any other judge or justice of the peace of said county, to answer to the people of the State of Illinois, on said charge, and abide such further orders as may be made concerning said charge, and make due service and return hereof, as the law directs.\nGiven under my hand and seal, at my said office, this 21st day of May, 1893.\nJ. J. Hennessey, [Seal.]\nJustice of the Peace.\u201d\nUnder this warrant appellant was arrested on Monday morning and imprisoned until Tuesday morning, when a continuance was granted the people. On Wednesday, at 2 o\u2019clock, the prisoner, together with four other Salvation Army soldiers imprisoned for the same cause, was taken before Judge M. F. Tuley of the Circuit Court of Cook County, on habeas corpus proceedings, and by him discharged. An action in trespass for false imprisonment was brought by her against both Hartung and the justice of the peace.\nAs to the defendant, Hennessey, the court instructed the jury to bring in a verdict in his favor, which the jury did, making no mention of Hartung.\nAppellant prayed for and was allowed an appeal from the judgment entered by the court for appellee.\nPope & Small, attorneys for appellant.\nMasterson & Haft, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0233-01",
  "first_page_order": 231,
  "last_page_order": 234
}
