{
  "id": 2408369,
  "name": "C. M. Wakefield v. George W. Pennington",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wakefield v. Pennington",
  "decision_date": "1881-10-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "374",
  "last_page": "374",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 Ill. App. 374"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 94,
    "char_count": 905,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "sha256": "d9b5bac46b565de3e566632289c40d70b5e97a75200c6db8aeb4a90abc96922f",
    "simhash": "1:57538d64ebd10258",
    "word_count": 154
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:47:09.046027+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. M. Wakefield v. George W. Pennington."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wall, J.\nDefendant in error brought an action of assumpsit against plaintiff in error. The summons was duly served, and at the return term a default was entered and damages assessed at $324.44. The record fails to show that a declaration was ever filed in the case \u2014 rather, it shows that there was none \u2014nor has a diminution been suggested or any reason for supposing that there was a declaration and that it has been misplaced. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded.\nEeversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wall, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. John H. Halley, for plaintiff in error;"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. M. Wakefield v. George W. Pennington.\nPractice \u2014 Failure to pile declaration. \u2014 Where the record shows that no declaration was filed in the cause, the judgment is erroneous and must he reversed.\nError to the Circuit Court of Jasper county; the Hon. John H. Halley, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed October 6, 1881.\nMr. John H. Halley, for plaintiff in error;\ncited Practice Act, \u00a7 48."
  },
  "file_name": "0374-01",
  "first_page_order": 370,
  "last_page_order": 370
}