{
  "id": 5380875,
  "name": "In re John Mullin et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Mullin",
  "decision_date": "1886-11-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "551",
  "last_page": "552",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 Ill. 551"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "109 Ill. 31",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2853608
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/109/0031-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 Ill. 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Hun, 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hun,",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 Ill. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2860274
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/112/0140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 Ill. 31",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2853608
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/109/0031-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 2430,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.524,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.579918422585439e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6802118579114071
    },
    "sha256": "11af04f23dcffa16cd5a6ea71944d66ef6a9a08fd1d7033a15e1fd109d89f7fc",
    "simhash": "1:41235aa60ab8d612",
    "word_count": 425
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:54:58.009226+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re John Mullin et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Magruder\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an application for discharge under section 2 of \u201cAn act concerning insolvent debtors,\u201d being chapter 72 of the Revised Statutes of this State. The appellants were arrested on a capias ad satisfaciendum, issued upon a judgment, recovered in the Superior Court of Cook county, in an action of trespass for an assault and battery. The judgment, so recovered, has heretofore been brought before this court for review, and was affirmed by us in Mullin et al. v. Spangenberg, 112 Ill. 140. A full statement of all the facts will be found in the opinion in that ease.\nThe Superior Court held, that malice was the gist. of the action, in which the judgment aforesaid was rendered, and that appellants could not be discharged under the Insolvent law. The decision of that court was affirmed by the Appellate Court, and Mullin and McHugh, the insolvent debtors, have appealed.\nIn the record, now presented to us, no other question is involved than that, which was considered and decided by us in In re Murphy, 109 Ill. 31. The decision in the last named case is decisive of all the issues in the case at bar. The judgment of the Appellate Court is, therefore, affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Magruder"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. H. 0. McDaid, and Mr. C. A. Knight, for the appellant,",
      "\u2022 Messrs. Brandt & Hoffman,' for Spangenberg,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re John Mullin et al.\nFiled at Ottawa November 13, 1886.\nInsolvent debtob\u2014 discharge from imprisonment\u2014when malice is the \u201cgist of the action.\" Malice being the \u201cgist of the action\u201d in a suit in trespass for an assault and battery, the defendant in the judgment, arrested and held in custody under a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum issued thereon, is not entitled to a discharge from imprisonment under the Insolvent Debt- or\u2019s act.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;\u2014 heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Kirk Hawes, Judge, presiding.\nMr. H. 0. McDaid, and Mr. C. A. Knight, for the appellant,\ncontended that malice is not necessarily the gist of the action in trespass to the person, but that force is the gist of that action. Gratly v. Stern, 37 Hun, 426.\nThe gist of an action is the ground or object of the action in point of law, without which there would be no cause of action. 1 Bouvier\u2019s Law Die. 712; Gould\u2019s Pleading, 41; Abbott\u2019s Law Dic.; Wharton\u2019s Law Dic.; First Nat. Bank v. Burkett, 101 Ill. 394.\n\u2022 Messrs. Brandt & Hoffman,' for Spangenberg,\nrelied principally on the case In re Murphy, 109 Ill. 31."
  },
  "file_name": "0551-01",
  "first_page_order": 551,
  "last_page_order": 552
}