{
  "id": 436675,
  "name": "Lucy N. Wight et als., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The People, &c., Defendants in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wight v. People",
  "decision_date": "1854-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "417",
  "last_page": "418",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 Ill. 417"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 133,
    "char_count": 1765,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.625,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1532863117425301e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7687390268699064
    },
    "sha256": "07f7850c553ff683cfd5fdb11545a8502a7132cc57aa1dd2cacb926af7a56119",
    "simhash": "1:bc111d8ada8f3eb3",
    "word_count": 303
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:34.058491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lucy N. Wight et als., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The People, &c., Defendants in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Treat, C. J.\nThe constitution requires all prosecutions to be carried on \u201c in the name and by the authority of the people of the State of Illinois. The cases of Donnelly v. The People, 11 Illinois, 552, and The People v. The Mississippi and Atlantic Railroad Company, 13 Ib. 66, decides that an information in the nature of a quo warranto is a prosecution within the meaning of that provision. The information in this case was not presented in the mode prescribed by the constitution. It was not exhibited \u201c in the name and by the authority of the people of the State of Illinois.\u201d But it runs in the name of the State\u2019s attorney, \u201c who sues for the people in this behalf.\u201d On the authority of the cases already cited, it is substantially defective, and clearly insufficient to support the judgment pronounced by the court.\nThe judgment is reversed.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Treat, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Higgins and Strother, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "W. H. L. Wallace, for the people."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lucy N. Wight et als., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The People, &c., Defendants in Error.\nERROR TO JO-DA VIES.\nAn information in the nature of a quo warranto is a prosecution, and must be / exhibited \u201c in the name and by the authority of the people of the State ofZ Elinois.\u201d <\nThis was a proceeding against the plaintiffs in error, by quo warranto, claiming that they were usurping certain ferry franchises in the city of Galena. A demurrer was filed to this proceeding, which was overruled in the circuit court. The defendants in the court below failed to make any further answer, and at March term, 1850, Sheldon, Judge, presiding, a judgment was rendered, declaring that the franchises claimed were without sufficient warrant, and forfeiting the same to the people.\nThe defendants below sued out this writ of error.\nHiggins and Strother, for plaintiffs in error.\nW. H. L. Wallace, for the people."
  },
  "file_name": "0417-01",
  "first_page_order": 429,
  "last_page_order": 430
}