{
  "id": 5201527,
  "name": "Seth F. Hanchet, Sheriff, et al. v. Joseph F. Ives, use, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hanchet v. Ives",
  "decision_date": "1897-03-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "83",
  "last_page": "85",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 83"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Gilm. 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "case_ids": [
        2462462
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/8/0537-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 Ill. 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        835355
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/152/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 Ill. 333",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 Ill. 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        831468
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/108/0641-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 Ill. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2770371
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/86/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 Ill. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5426891
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/133/0332-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. App. 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4985207
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/33/0471-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3444,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0873401050065135e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5642975710166886
    },
    "sha256": "e18221995a39002ef4c34fa715177a2eb240d444a99b96ba68ca517d31a27bc9",
    "simhash": "1:063c76f8110a185d",
    "word_count": 591
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Seth F. Hanchet, Sheriff, et al. v. Joseph F. Ives, use, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis case, under the same title, has been in this court and in the Supreme Court heretofore. 33 Ill. App. 471; 133 Ill. 332.\nWhen the case returned to the Superior Court the parties made a stipulation that the \u201c cause \u201d should \u201c be submitted to and heard by his honor Judge Stein.\u201d Thereafter a new replication, with pleadings subsequent thereto, was filed, and the appellants then demanded a trial by jury. Being refused, they excepted. In this was no error. Here the \u201c cause,\u201d and not the cause upon \u201c issues joined,\u201d was submitted. Gage v. Com. Nat. Bank, 86 Ill. 371; Heacock v. Lubukee, 108 Ill. 641.\nThe new replication was an amplification of the previous one, the substance of which is stated in 133 Ill. 333-4; and upon rejoinders and surrejoinders, the parties got to a basket full of issues of fact.\nThe validity of the first replication was not passed upon by the Supreme Court.\nSeveral issues of fact are also joined upon pleadings following that replication.\nOne of the rejoinders to the new replication was that the agreement in that replication stated was made more than five years before that replication was filed.\nTo that rejoinder a demurrer was rightly sustained. This action of trespass is not grounded upon any right acquired by that agreement. The appellee had possession\u2014the appellants took it from him, and must justify.\nThe agreement, if valid, only destroys the justification. And the validity of \u25a0 the agreement is not now in question. That could be tested only by demurrers to the replications, and abiding by the decisions on the demurrers. By pleading over\u2014rejoining\u2014all questions of law upon the replications are waived. Beer v. Philips, Breese, 44, is in point.\nIves is the sole appellee\u2014was the sole plaintiff below. For whose use he sues\u2014what he shall do with the proceeds \u2014pay all to one, or divide them up\u2014does not concern the appellants. The usees are not parties to the suit. They are the several plaintiffs in the writs held by Ives, the constable. Tedrick v. Wells, 152 Ill. 214.\nThe averment that the suit was for their use was not traversable. Boone v. Stone, 3 Gilm. 537.\nUpon the conflicting evidence, the finding of the court is final.\nThere is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. F. Abbott and G. W. & J. T. Xretzinger, attorneys for appellants; H. F. Gallagher, of counsel.",
      "Oliver & Hecartney, and Simmons & Winston, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Seth F. Hanchet, Sheriff, et al. v. Joseph F. Ives, use, etc.\n1. Waiver\u2014Of Defects in Pleading.\u2014By pleading over by filing a rejoinder, all questions of law arising upon a replication are waived.\n2. Averments\u2014Not Traversable.\u2014An averment that a suit is brought for the use of another is not traversable.\n3. Finding of the Court\u2014Upon Conflicting Evidence.\u2014The finding of the court upon conflicting evidence is ordinarily final.\n4. Juries\u2014Waiver of, by Agreement.\u2014The parties to a suit made a stipulation that the cause, should be submitted to and heard by the court. Thereafter, a new replication and pleadings subsequent thereto were filed, and one of the parties then demanded a trial by jury which was refused. Held that this was proper as the \u201c cause,\u201d and not the cause upon \u201cissue joined,\u201d was submitted.\nTrespass.\u2014Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 8, 1897.\nE. F. Abbott and G. W. & J. T. Xretzinger, attorneys for appellants; H. F. Gallagher, of counsel.\nOliver & Hecartney, and Simmons & Winston, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0083-01",
  "first_page_order": 81,
  "last_page_order": 83
}
