{
  "id": 435638,
  "name": "Amos Chipps, Appellant, v. Thomas Yancey, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chipps v. Yancey",
  "decision_date": "1819-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "19",
  "last_page": "19",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Breese 19"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ill. 19"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Scam., 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Johns., 82",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "case_ids": [
        2134478
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/johns/8/0082-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Cranch, 480",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Cranch,",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Dall, 302",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Dall,",
      "case_ids": [
        11746640,
        6124458,
        11746572,
        6132407
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/2/0302-02",
        "/f-cas/4/0469-02",
        "/us/2/0302-01",
        "/f-cas/1/1140-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 110,
    "char_count": 1277,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.558,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.01609939421178609
    },
    "sha256": "8ab6d66b4936a53278512122f344a1534fed9adf96c5cee02112a52e8704423c",
    "simhash": "1:44025d9b7b8e7ed8",
    "word_count": 237
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:48.520166+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Amos Chipps, Appellant, v. Thomas Yancey, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion of the Court. This was an action of debt on a judgment rendered in the State of Kentucky. The defendant pleaded nil debet, to which there was a demurrer, which the court sustained. To reverse this opinion, this appeal was taken. It is considered by the court, that the judgment of the court below, sustaining the plaintiff\u2019s demurrer, to the defendant\u2019s plea, be affirmed with costs,\nJudgment affirmed.\nJustice Wilson having decided this cause in the court below, gave no opinion.\nNil debet is a bad plea in an action of debt brought on a judgment obtained in another State. Armstrong v. Carsars, exr., 2 Dall, 302. Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 480.\nNil debet is not a good plea to an action of debt on a recognizance, nor to any action founded on a record or specialty. Bull\u00eds v. Giddins, 8 Johns., 82.\nIn an action of debt brought on a sheriff\u2019s bond, the plea of nil debet is bad on demurrer. Where a bond is'the foundation of an action of debt, nil debet is not a good plea. It is otherwise where the instrument is but the inducement to the action. Davis v. Burton et al., 3 Scam., 42. King v. Ramsey, 13 Ills. R., 622.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Amos Chipps, Appellant, v. Thomas Yancey, Appellee.\nAPPEAL FROM POPE.\nThe plea of nil debet is not a good plea to an action of debt upon a record."
  },
  "file_name": "0019-01",
  "first_page_order": 19,
  "last_page_order": 19
}