{
  "id": 4794994,
  "name": "George W. Acres vs. David George",
  "name_abbreviation": "Acres v. George",
  "decision_date": "1872-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "211",
  "last_page": "211",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 Ill. Cir. Ct. Rep. 211"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Cir. Ct.",
    "id": 14968,
    "name": "Illinois Circuit Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 98,
    "char_count": 1224,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.445,
    "sha256": "edd1ba0d5fb176e2c640a05db6bb0d73e38e6125a43d3240911ed63382bcd39b",
    "simhash": "1:a6c676d4ecf890a0",
    "word_count": 204
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:06:47.683851+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George W. Acres vs. David George."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam\nThere was error in sustaining the demurrer to the amended additional replication.\nIt shows that plaintiff\u2019s cattle were in defendant\u2019s field with the consent of the latter, and they passed thence upon the premises of the defendant through a breach in the partition fence, made by the cattle of the defendant. The breach thus made it was his duty to repair. Under such circumstances the defendant had no more right to take \"up and hold plaintiff\u2019s cattle, under the act of 1867, entitled \u201cDomestic animals,\u201d than he would have had if the breach in the fence had been made by the defendant himself instead of his -cattle.\n\u25a0Reversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Eustace, Barge & Dixon, for appellant.",
      "Jas. K. Edsall, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(Supreme Court of Illinois.)\nGeorge W. Acres vs. David George.\n(January 22, 1872.)\nPartition Fences \u2014 Duty to Repair \u2014 Liability for Cattle Breaking Through. Where the plaintiff\u2019s cattle were in defendant\u2019s field with the consent of the latter and they passed upon the defendant\u2019s premises through a breach in the partition fence made by the cattle of defendant, the defendant has no right to take \u00fap and hold plaintiff\u2019s cattle, than if such breach had been made by himself.\nAppeal from Lee county.\nEustace, Barge & Dixon, for appellant.\nJas. K. Edsall, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0211-01",
  "first_page_order": 231,
  "last_page_order": 231
}