{
  "id": 435726,
  "name": "James & Paris Mason, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Christian Eakle, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mason v. Eakle",
  "decision_date": "1824-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "83",
  "last_page": "84",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Breese 83"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ill. 83"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Scam., 415",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2481721
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/2/0415-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 117,
    "char_count": 1867,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "sha256": "196697c1b21c428038b977ff02b4086b508cad2d48695e34bf5050db7c12d455",
    "simhash": "1:1c0df0c57f9eb768",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:48.520166+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James & Paris Mason, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Christian Eakle, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion of the Court by\nChief Justice Reynolds.\nThe only error assigned in this case is, that the court below erred in refusing to set aside an execution which had issued in favor of the defendant, against the plaintiffs. It was agreed upon the argument, that the note upon which judgment was rendered, stipulated for the payment of twenty per cent, interest.\nThe judgment was rendered for the amount of the principal, with the twenty per cent, interest to the time of the rendition of such judgment, but was silent as to any rate of interest thereafter to be recovered. The execution commanded the sheriff to make the amount of the judgment with twenty per cent, interest from the rendition of the judgment. The court are of the opinion that the court below erred in refusing to set aside the execution. The statute, it is true, makes legal any rate of interest for which the parties contract, but the statute also declares, that judgments shall bear but six per cent, interest. When a judgment is obtained upon a contract, that contract ceases to be, and is merged in the judgment, and the judgment is operated upon, and controlled, not by the contract, but by the statute.\nThe judgment must be reversed, the cause remanded with instructions to the court below to set aside the execution. The plaintiffs must recover their costs.\nStarr, for plaintiff in error.\nSmith, for defendant in error.\nJudgment reversed.\nAffirmed in Pearsons v. Hamilton, 1 Scam., 415.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Chief Justice Reynolds."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Starr, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Smith, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James & Paris Mason, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Christian Eakle, Defendant in Error.\nERROR TO MADISON.\nA contract to pay a sum. of money with twenty per cent, interest, is merged in the judgment rendered upon such contract, and the judgment is then controlled by the statute and not by the contract.\nAn execution issued upon such judgment for \u201c twenty per cent, interest from its rendition,\u201d will be quashed."
  },
  "file_name": "0083-01",
  "first_page_order": 83,
  "last_page_order": 84
}