{
  "id": 2576678,
  "name": "O. M. Adams, plaintiff in error, vs. William R. Payson, defendant in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Adams v. Payson",
  "decision_date": "1849-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "26",
  "last_page": "27",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 Ill. 26"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2383,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.516,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.808665545098569e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8977610277664837
    },
    "sha256": "fcf8256e45c333f9474acd6b37ebd3ff35a4f1cc4c0547b17c923d5c5a649113",
    "simhash": "1:e730f51fbc1fb3d0",
    "word_count": 434
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:56.294164+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "O. M. Adams, plaintiff in error, vs. William R. Payson, defendant in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion by Mr. Justice Cat\u00f3n :\nIn this case, we have again to reiterate a principle so familiar that authority in its support would be superfluous.\nThis bill is to foreclose a mortgage, given to secure, among other things, the payment of a promissory note; the non-payment of which is alone complained of. The bill was taken for confessed, and it was referred to a master, to compute the amount due upon the note; and to assess and tax the fee of the complainant\u2019s solicitor, according to an agreement filed in the cause, by which the defendant bound himself to pay such fee, in case the complainant had to foreclose the mortgage.\nThis agreement was executed some time after the mortgage, and before the commencement of this suit, and is not referred to in or made a part of the bill; nor was it ever placed upon the files of the Court, till more than two months after the bill was filed.\nThe master reported the amount due upon th\u2019e note at \u00ed\u00bf 464 47; and that he had taxed the fee of the complainant\u2019s solicitor at thirty dollars. For both of which sums the decree was rendered.\nThat portion of the decree, alone, is assigned for error, which directs the defendant to pay the solicitor\u2019s fee of thirty dollars. That part of the decree must undoubtedly be reversed. No claim for that fee is set up in the bill, and the defendant had no opportunity of defending that claim. The Court could not give the complainant more than he asked, and showed, by his bill, that he was entitled to.\nThat portion of the plea complained of must be reversed, and the residue stand affirmed. The costs to be paid by the defendant in error.\nDecree, modified.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Opinion by Mr. Justice Cat\u00f3n :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. Davis and N. Edwards, for plaintiff in error.",
      "L. F. Casey, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O. M. Adams, plaintiff in error, vs. William R. Payson, defendant in error.\nError to Madison.\nWhere a master included a fee for \u00a730 00 to the complainant\u2019s solicitor, upon a reforence to him to compute the amount due, upon a hill taken fro confesso, where the hill did not claim such fee, it was decided to he error.\nThis was a hill in chancery, in the Madison county Circuit Court, to foreclose a mortgage filed by Payson against Adams, which came on to be heard before Kcerner, Judge, at the August term, A. D. 1848, and a decree of foreclosure was allowed. The facts of the case, and the errors complained of, will be sufficiently stated in the opinion.\nL. Davis and N. Edwards, for plaintiff in error.\nL. F. Casey, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0026-01",
  "first_page_order": 34,
  "last_page_order": 35
}