{ "id": 435693, "name": "The President and Directors of the State Bank, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Nathaniel Buckmaster, Defendant in Error", "name_abbreviation": "President of the State Bank v. Buckmaster", "decision_date": "1826-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "176", "last_page": "177", "citations": [ { "type": "nominative", "cite": "1 Breese 176" }, { "type": "official", "cite": "1 Ill. 176" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "2 Scam., 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2478139 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/3/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Ill., 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2574126 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/11/0443-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Gilm., 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gilm.", "case_ids": [ 2567427 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/10/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Ill., 515", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "9 Johns. Rep., 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns. Rep.,", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 Bin., 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Binn.", "case_ids": [ 1788950 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/binn/2/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Bin., 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Binn.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "3 Johns. Rep., 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns. Rep.,", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1 Johns. Cas., 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns. Cas.", "case_ids": [ 1888816, 1888833, 1888830 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/johns-cas/1/0035-01", "/johns-cas/1/0036-01", "/johns-cas/1/0035-02" ] }, { "cite": "5 Johns. Rep , 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns. Rep ,", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "5 Johns. Rep., 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns. Rep.,", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "3 Johns. Rep., 144", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns. Rep.,", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 281, "char_count": 4312, "ocr_confidence": 0.584, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.016101517887722412 }, "sha256": "296e8eba36472e6fbc63f7fc6b550945fbf62115b79dc38b9ad1294a67eb6a95", "simhash": "1:06bb4c92c57fdebd", "word_count": 771 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:48.520166+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The President and Directors of the State Bank, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Nathaniel Buckmaster, Defendant in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Opinion of the Court by\nJustice Lockwood.\nThe only question submitted in this case is, whether the court ought to have suffered the amendment asked for. The mistake committed in the scire facias is clearly a clerical error, and upon the principle assumed by late cases, that the court will amend all such errors, the court below ought to have permitted it. The mistake in this case could not lead to any misapprehension or in the least tend to surprise the party. The doctrine of amendments is well calculated to advance justice and prevent delay. The constitution requiring that writs, &c., shall run \u201cin the name of the people of the state of Illinois,\u201d seems to be directory to the clerk or person issuing the process, and the omission of the words is a mere misprision of the clerk and ought not to work an injury to the plaintiffs. ' The court therefore erred in dismissing the scire facias and entering judgment against plaintiffs for the costs. The judgment is reversed with costs, and the cause remanded to the circuit court of Madison, for further proceedings,\nCowles, states\u2019 attorney, for plaintiff in error.\nJ. Reynolds, for defendant in error.\nJudgment reversed.\nArticle 4, section 7.\nGenerally, all amendments are within the discretion of the court, and are allowed in furtherance of justice, under the particular circumstances of the case. 6 Dane\u2019s Dig., 280. A writ amended by adding the clerk\u2019s name on paying costs. Id., 295.\nA ca. sa. on which the defendant had been taken was allowed to be amended by adding the testatum clause. 3 Johns. Rep., 144. 5 Johns. Rep., 163. 2 Term. Rep., 737. 5 Johns. Rep , 100. 1 Johns. Cas., 31. 3 Johns. Rep., 443.\nAmendments are reducible to no certain rule. Each particular case must be left to the sound discretion of the court. The best principle seems to be that an amendment shall or shall not be permitted, as it will best tend to the furtherance of justice. 1 Bin., 369. Clerical errors may be amended in a criminal as well as in a civii case. 2 Bin., 514. Mistakes and misprisions of the clerk may be amended at any time. Hanley v. Dewes, Miss. Rep., 17. Vide, 2 Tidd\u2019s Prac., 1036. 2 Bos. & Pull., 275. 9 Johns. Rep., 386. 1 Bos. & Pull., 31, 137, 329. 5 id., 103.", "type": "majority", "author": "Justice Lockwood." } ], "attorneys": [ "Cowles, states\u2019 attorney, for plaintiff in error.", "J. Reynolds, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The President and Directors of the State Bank, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Nathaniel Buckmaster, Defendant in Error.\nERROR TO MADISON.\nThe omission in a writ, of the words, \u201c The people of the state of Illinois to the coroner,\u201d &c., is a mere misprision of the clerk and is amendable.\nThis was a scire facias brought by the plaintiffs in the circuit court of Madison county, against the defendant, then sheriff of said county, to foreclose a mortgage executed by him to the State bank. A motion was made by defendant\u2019s counsel, to dismiss the suit on the ground of irregularity in the scire facias, the words, \u201c the people of the state of Illinois to the coroner of Madison county,\u201d having been omitted. A motion was also made by the plaintiffs\u2019 counsel to amend the scire facias, which the court overruled, and sustained the motion of defendant to dismiss. The errors assigned are, in dismissing the scire facias and in disallowing the amendment.\nThe present constitution is identical with that of 1818, so far as relates to this case. Article 5, sec. 26, of Constitution of 1848. In McFadden v. Fortier, 20 Ill., 515, which was a demurrer to a scire facias, the defendant objected that it did not run in the name of \u201c The People of the State of Illinois; \u201d but the court said: \u201cIt has, however, been decided by this court, (State Bank v. Buckmaster,) in precisely such a case as this, that the omission of these words in a writ of sci. fa. is a mere misprision of the clerk, and is amendable after a motion is made to dismiss on account of the omission. Here no motion was made to amend.\u201d\nA fee-bill is a process, and must conform to the requirement of the constitution, that \u201cAll process, writs and other proceedings, shall run in the name of \u201c The People of the State of Illinois,\u201d or it is void. Ferris v. Crow, 5 Gilm., 96.\nThe precept under which the sheriff makes sale of lands for non-payment of taxes, is not a process, and therefore need not run in the name of \u201c The People.\u201d Scarritt v. Chapman, 11 Ill., 443. Curry v. Hinman, id., 420. See also Harris v. Jenks, 2 Scam., 475." }, "file_name": "0176-01", "first_page_order": 176, "last_page_order": 177 }