{
  "id": 5194984,
  "name": "R. D. Ward v. William Montgomery",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ward v. Montgomery",
  "decision_date": "1896-11-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "346",
  "last_page": "347",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 346"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "153 Ill. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3026192
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/153/0458-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 3063,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.408767690195799e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27649391914354854
    },
    "sha256": "9904364949e6193216bfa176dae97492a81febc907c1b723259f06deb87a3c3f",
    "simhash": "1:7181dcbe2b9f964a",
    "word_count": 521
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. D. Ward v. William Montgomery."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellee might have brought his action in tort, but we feel concluded by the case of Elgin v. Joslyn, 136111. 532, to hold he could waive the tort and bring assumpsit.\nAside from this the justice had jurisdiction in actions for taking or detaining personal property, and there is but one form of action in such courts.\nAppellant had possession of the building, exercised acts of exclusive dominion over it, in denial of the right of appellee, and his conduct and the letter written by him to appellee clearly evinced a demand for possession would have been disregarded and entirely unavailing.\nA formal demand was therefore unnecessary. Keller v. Robinson, 153 Ill. 458; Cooley on Torts, 524, 525; 5th Amer. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 528, note 2.\nThe contention of appellant he held possession under agreement with appellee, he should do so in order to secure to him the repayment of taxes paid by him upon the house, it and the lot having been assessed and taxed together, was submitted to the jury under instructions which are not questioned.\nThe testimony on the point whether he was so authorized to possess himself of the building, was conflicting, and no reason appears we should assume to interfere with the finding of the- jury upon it.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mills Brothers, attorneys for appellant.",
      "LeForoee & Lee, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. D. Ward v. William Montgomery.\n1. Waiver\u2014Form of Action.\u2014A person who is entitled to bring an action in tort for the conversion of property may waive the tort and bring the same in assumpsit.\n2. Justices\u2019 Courts\u2014But one Form of Action.\u2014There is but one form of action in justices\u2019 courts.\n3. Demand for Possession\u2014 When unnecessary.\u2014When the circumstances \u00f3f a case clearly evince that a demand for possession of personal property would have been disregarded and entirely unavailing, a formal demand before bringing suit for its valu\u00e9is unnecessary.\nAssumpsit, for value of property converted. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon County; the Hon. Edward P. Vail, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 21, 1896.\nStatement oe the Case.\n\u25a0Appellee obtained judgment against appellant before a justice of the peace, and also in the Circuit Court on appeal, for the value of a house which had been erected upon a lot belonging to appellant under contract, it might be removed.\nAppellee did not build the house, but with the acquiescence of appellant acquired the right and interest of those who did, and for a time had possession of it.\nAppellant finally possessed himself of the building, exercised exclusive control thereof, and in response to a demand from appellee for rent, refused to pay, and wrote him a letter, which was properly construed by the court to assert appellee had no right in the house, and to challenge him to institute suit in order it might appear he had no such right or interest.\nAppellee brought assumpsit for the value of the house \u2014prevailed\u2014and hence this appeal.\nMills Brothers, attorneys for appellant.\nLeForoee & Lee, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0346-01",
  "first_page_order": 344,
  "last_page_order": 345
}