{
  "id": 5275096,
  "name": "Benjamin W. Taylor, Estelle F. Taylor and William R. Proctor v. Elizabeth Richman",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Richman",
  "decision_date": "1900-02-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "419",
  "last_page": "420",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 Ill. App. 419"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. 541",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5307141
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/64/0541-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ill. 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5214971
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/36/0275-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5256191
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/35/0150-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 2060,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.409274747184923e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7997786743551458
    },
    "sha256": "a68d65dddb3d872506f855dde23cddc1db04e835276fc8d90c86d621e3c0d0d2",
    "simhash": "1:9be51632749dc354",
    "word_count": 359
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:29:28.737909+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Benjamin W. Taylor, Estelle F. Taylor and William R. Proctor v. Elizabeth Richman."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Harker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAt the February term, 1897, of the Circuit Court of Mason County, the defendant in error brought suit against the plaintiffs in error to recover interest due on a promissory note for $2,524, dated May 14, 1894, and due in six years. The note bore interest at the rate of seven per cent, payable annually, and at the time suit was brought there was two years\u2019 interest due, amounting to $353.36. The damages were laid in the declaration at $500. The case was continued for service on defendants not served until the August term, 1897, at which time another year\u2019s interest had become due. No pleas being filed, judgment by default was entered against the plaintiffs in error for $568.76, being for three years\u2019 interest, and $68.76 in excess of the ad damnum in the declaration.\nThe judgment is erroneous, for two reasons: It exceeds the ad damvnum in the declaration. It is reversible error to enter judgment for a greater amount than is claimed in the plaintiffs\u2019 declaration. Hichins v. Lyon, 35 Ill. 150; Altes v. Hinckler et al., 36 Ill. 275; Kelly v. National Bank, etc., 64 Ill. 541.\nIt includes a year\u2019s interest that was not due at the time suit was commenced. It is well settled that a party can not recover for money not due at the time of instituting suit.\nThe judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Harker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Beach & Hodnett, attorneys for plaintiffs in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Benjamin W. Taylor, Estelle F. Taylor and William R. Proctor v. Elizabeth Richman.\n1. Practice\u2014Judgments in Excess of the Ad Damnum.\u2014It is reversible error to enter judgment for a greater amount than is claimed by the plaintiff in his declaration.\n2. Same\u2014Recovery for Interest Not Due at the Commencement of Suit.\u2014A party can not recover for money not due at the time of instituting suit.\nAssumpsit.\u2014Error to the Circuit Court of Mason County; the Hon. Thomas N. Mehan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1899.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed February 27, 1900.\nBeach & Hodnett, attorneys for plaintiffs in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0419-01",
  "first_page_order": 425,
  "last_page_order": 426
}
