{
  "id": 1673317,
  "name": "Great Northern Hotel Co. v. Farrand & Votey Organ Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Great Northern Hotel Co. v. Farrand & Votey Organ Co.",
  "decision_date": "1900-07-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "419",
  "last_page": "422",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 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": "185 Ill. 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3223995
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/185/0254-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 Ill. 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3225991
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/185/0191-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 5176,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5916105598991863e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8183403742843695
    },
    "sha256": "5ba4527b722863af41780d7dcc19f72878c44fa5409c2e7c930687b515e95fd0",
    "simhash": "1:1b37f1758eab1778",
    "word_count": 894
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:41:07.083929+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Great Northern Hotel Co. v. Farrand & Votey Organ Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe original summons in this case was against \u201c Great Northern Hotel Co., a corporation.\u201d The sheriff\u2019s return indorsed thereon is as follows:\n\u201c Served this writ on the within named Great Northern Hotel Co., a corporation, by delivering a copy thereof to W. S. Eden, president of said corporation, this 10th day of February, 1899.\u201d\nA declaration was filed by appellee declaring upon certain promissory notes made by appellant and payable to the order of appellee.\nAppellant by its attorney, filed a special appearance stating therein that it was \u201c for the purpose of pleading to the jurisdiction of the court, for want of a valid service of summons on said defendant (appellant) and for no other purpose.\u201d The same day appellant filed what is called by counsel, a plea in abatement, wherein it is averred that \u201c the only service of process upon this defendant in this cause was by the delivery to this defendant \u201d of what is an exact copy of said original summons except that it reads \u201c Great Northern Hotel Cy., a corporation,\u201d Cy.\u201d being written therein instead of \u201c Co.\u201d\nTo that plea a demurrer was filed by appellee which was sustained by the court. Appellant elected to abide by its said plea, and thereupon default and judgment were entered.\nThe only question presented for the consideration of this court by appellant as stated by its counsel, is whether there was a good and sufficient service of summons upon appellant. The return by the sheriff shows a good service of said summons by delivering a copy thereof to \"W. S. Eden, its president. The plea does not in express terms deny that a correct copy was delivered to said Eden, president, but says the only service was \u201c by the delivery to this defendant \u201d of the copy wherein \u201c Cy.\u201d was written instead of \u201c Co.\u201d But assume that this was a sufficient challenge of the sheriff\u2019s return. The fact is the proper person, the president, was served by the sheriff.\nThere is no pretense that appellant was misled or that it did not understand and interpret the copy served against its president exactly as it would have done if said copy had been \u201c Co.\u201d instead of \u201c Cy.\u201d It entered its special appearance in the right court, in the proper .case, and in apt time to prevent default for want of appearance. The only assignment of error is:\n\u201c That the court erred in sustaining the plaintiff\u2019s demurrer to the defendant\u2019s special plea.\u201d\nThe office and purpose of a summons is to advise the defendant of the fact that a suit has been commenced, of the names of the parties, and the time and place when and where he must appear and \u201c plead, answer or demur.\u201d The statute provides that in a suit against a corporation, it \u201cmay be served with process by leaving a copy thereof with its president.\u201d That statute does not require a fac simile of the process to be thus delivered. The question is, has the office and purpose of the process been attained ? It is impossible that any one could have misunderstood the copy of summons under consideration, by reason of the abbreviation \u201c Co.\u201d being written \u201c Cy.\u201d when it appeared between the words \u201c Great Northern Hotel,\u201d and the words \u201c a corporation.\u201d It would be to challenge the intelligence and common sense of the reader thereof to assert that it could. Mere misspelling never, in law, vitiates any document. The service of the summons in this case was in substantial compliance with the provision of the statute, and was good and sufficient.\nAppellee has moved that statutory damages be allowed. This court is of opinion that the appeal in this case \u201c was prosecuted for delay,\u201d and that the motion for statutory damages should be sustained. Baker v. Prebis, 185 Ill. 191; Town v. Alexander, 185 Ill. 254.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed, and judgment entered against appellant in favor of appellee for an amount equal to three (3) per centum of the amount of the judgment entered in the trial court. Affirmed with statutory damages.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. S. Huey, attorney for appellant.",
      "Deerees, Brace & Ritter, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Great Northern Hotel Co. v. Farrand & Votey Organ Co.\n1. Writs\u2014Opee and Purpose of a Summons.\u2014The office and purpose of a summons is to advise the defendant of the fact that a suit has been commenced against him, the name of the plaintiff and the time and place where he must appear and plead or demur.\n2. Service of Process\u2014Attempts to Serve Writs.\u2014Where an attempt has been made by a proper officer to serve a writ and'the office and purpose of the process has been attained, and it appears from his return that it is impossible for any one to misunderstand the matter, it is sufficient.\n3. Abbreviations\u2014Bad Spelling Does Not Vitiate a Return.\u2014Where in a sheriff's return of service of a summons upon a corporation the word \u201c Co.\u201d was by inadvertence written \u201c Cy.\u201d it- was held to be a mere case of bad spelling and not to vitiate the return.\nAssumpsit, on promissory notes. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1899.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 31, 1900.\nJ. S. Huey, attorney for appellant.\nDeerees, Brace & Ritter, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0419-01",
  "first_page_order": 439,
  "last_page_order": 442
}