{
  "id": 2567964,
  "name": "Charles Peck, administrator of James W. Stephenson, plaintiff in error, v. Isaac P. Stevens et al., defendants in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Peck v. Stevens",
  "decision_date": "1848-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "127",
  "last_page": "128",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "5 Gilm. 127"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 Ill. 127"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Gilm. 670",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Scam. 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Gilm. 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "case_ids": [
        2466017
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/6/0491-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Scam. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2474202
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/3/0502-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2851,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.632,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4046040670537478e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6453856962317108
    },
    "sha256": "2219c00a6ce1980635be9880f13e7a79d89de5fa78c3c045422af46f2b8c922b",
    "simhash": "1:068dce7c8c3b74f9",
    "word_count": 498
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:52.114614+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Peck, administrator of James W. Stephenson, plaintiff in error, v. Isaac P. Stevens et al., defendants in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "The Opinion of the Court was delivered by\nTreat, C. J.\nThe Court rendered a judgment in favor of Stevens and Brown against Peck, administrator of Stephenson, for $6,321-34 and costs; and awarded execution therefor against the goods and chattels, lands and tenements of the estate of the decedent.\nThe award of execution was erroneous, as will clearly appear by reference to the decisions of this Court in the following cases: Greenwood v. Spiller, 2 Scam. 502; Burnap v. Dennis, 3 do. 478; McDowell v. Wight, 4 do. 403; Powell v. Kettelle, 1 Gilm. 491; Welch v. Wallace, 3 do. 490.\nThe judgment of the County Court will, therefore, be reversed with the costs of this writ of error, and a judgment will be entered in this Court in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant for the sum of $6,321-34 and the costs in the Court below, and interest from the 29th of July, 1846, to b\u00a9 paid in the due course of administration.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Treat, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. Ford, for the plaintiff in error\u00bb",
      "V. H. Higgins, for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Peck, administrator of James W. Stephenson, plaintiff in error, v. Isaac P. Stevens et al., defendants in error.\nError to Jo Daviess County Court.\nIn a suit against an administrator, a judgment was rendered, and an award of execution against the goods, chattels, lands and tenements of the decedent in the hands of the administrator to be administered: Held, that the award of execution was erroneous.\nThe Supreme Court, on reversing a judgment, may render such a judgment as should have been rendered by the Circuit Court.\nIn this case, a judgment was rendered in the Jo Daviess County Court, at the November term, 1846, the Hon. Hugh T\u00bb Dickey presiding, in favor of the present defendants in error, for the sum of $6,321*34 upon the assessment of a jury of inquiry, the defendant not appearing. The form of the judgment concluded with an award of execution, thus ; \u201cAnd that execution issue therefor against the goods, chattels, lands and tenements of the said Jas. W. Stephenson, deceased, in the hands of the said administrator to be administered,\u201d\nT. Ford, for the plaintiff in error\u00bb\nV. H. Higgins, for the defendants in error.\nIf there be error in this record, the Court will enter such judgment as the Court below should have entered. The 49th section of the Practice Act provides that the Supreme Court may enter final judgment, arid the 52nd section provides that the Supreme Court, in case of partial reversal, should give such judgment as the inferior Court ought to have given, and such has been the uniform practice of this Court. Pearson v. Hamilton, 1 Scam. 416; McConnell v. Swailes, 2 do. 572; Wilmans v. The Bank of Illinois, 1 Gilm. 670; Welch v. Wallace, 3 do. 496.\nIf the judgment is erroneous, on the authority of the foregoing cases, this Court will enter judgment here for the defendants in error for $6,321-34 and interest, to be paid in the due course of administration."
  },
  "file_name": "0127-01",
  "first_page_order": 143,
  "last_page_order": 144
}