{
  "id": 435661,
  "name": "The Auditor of Public Accounts, Plaintiff, v. James Hall, late Treasurer, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Auditor of Public Accounts v. Hall",
  "decision_date": "1831-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "392",
  "last_page": "393",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Breese 392"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ill. 392"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 2172,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.563,
    "sha256": "c11eed9dd2d4fafb8498738fbb57aac39fa038a5373d7091e9a35601e9bb36ac",
    "simhash": "1:0c141506337c5f0d",
    "word_count": 368
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:48.520166+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Auditor of Public Accounts, Plaintiff, v. James Hall, late Treasurer, Defendant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.,\ndelivered the opinion of the court. A majority of the court is of opinion that this motion be dismissed for insufficiency of the notice. The notice is defective in not setting forth the cause of action with sufficient certainty\u2014no particular judgment is asked for, nor does the notice show how, or at what time defendant was indebted, nor is the reference to the report certain, to remove these objections.\nMotion dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cowles, state\u2019s attorney, for plaintiff.",
      "Blackwell and McRoberts, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Auditor of Public Accounts, Plaintiff, v. James Hall, late Treasurer, Defendant.\nNotice of a motion by the auditor against a delinquent treasurer must be certain and specific, and must ask for a judgment.\nThis was an original suit brought in the supreme court by the auditor against James Hall, late treasurer of the state, in pursuance of the act defining the duties of auditor and treasurer, approved March 24, 1819. The notice for the motion was in the following words :\nTo James Hall, late treasurer of the state of Illinois. Take notice, that before the next supreme court, to be held in Vandalia on the first Monday of December, 1831,1 shall move against you for default, in not paying over the sum of fourteen thousand eight hundred ninety-nine dollars, ninety-six cents, which was in your hands as treasurer, in January, 1831, as appears by your report to the last legislature.\nOctober 22,1831.\nAlfred Cowles, Circuit Attorney,\nFor the Auditor of Public Accounts.\nOn this notice the sheriff of Payette county made the following return : \u201c Delivered a copy of the within notice to James Hall, Oct. 24,1831.\u201d \u2022\nThe defendant moved the court to dismiss the motion on the following grounds : First. The notice filed in this case does not apprize the defendant that the plaintiff will move for any judgment.\nSecond. The motion does not specify for what the plaintiff will proceed by motion against him.\nThird. There is no account or other instrument or copy thereof as the foundation of the motion filed in the cause.\nFourth. The motion does not lie in this case at the suit of the auditor, and the auditor has not given any notice.\nCowles, state\u2019s attorney, for plaintiff.\nBlackwell and McRoberts, contra.\nLaws of 1819, p. 242."
  },
  "file_name": "0392-01",
  "first_page_order": 392,
  "last_page_order": 393
}