{
  "id": 2480262,
  "name": "John Ross and Job Ross, plaintiffs in error v. George Reddick, defendant in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ross v. Reddick",
  "decision_date": "1832-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "73",
  "last_page": "75",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Scam. 73"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 Ill. 73"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Pick. 224",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pick.",
      "case_ids": [
        2070909
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/18/0230-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Mass. 266",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        2003888
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/4/0237-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Mass. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Mass. 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        2027033
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/10/0103-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Mass. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        1999409
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/7/0008-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 276,
    "char_count": 4076,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.75,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.965595663741853e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9352585807126207
    },
    "sha256": "e2c1cf4b94331d0038da9ed71dee3d9ac754e5486f43220e393d31172b4db419",
    "simhash": "1:d6ed25fd301bdec0",
    "word_count": 732
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:34:33.017060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Ross and Job Ross, plaintiffs in error v. George Reddick, defendant in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Browne, Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, before the Circuit Court of Peoria county. The land that the trespass was committed on, is described in the declaration by the number of the section, township, and range. On the trial in the Court below, the plaintiff proved that the trespasses complained of, were committed on the tract of land described in the declaration, but introduced no evidence to show that the land was situated in the county of Peoria. The county of Peoria was formed by an act of the legislature, passed January 13th, 1825.\nIn that act, the limits of Peoria county are formed and described by reference to the lines of the public surveys. The statute defining the boundary of the county, is a public one, and the Courts are bound judicially to notice it.\nThe official certificate of the Register of a Land Office, to any fact on record in his office, is competent evidence of such fact, and is made so by the act of 1827.\nThe certificate of the Register of the Land Office went to show the right of pre-emption in the plaintiff to the land in question. It appears that issue was joined upon two of the pleas filed by the defendants, but the other plea was not joined. If several pleas be pleaded, one of which is not answered,\u2014and particularly where the matter may be given in evidence under the general issue,\u2014and the parties go to trial without any objection on the part of the defendant, that such plea remains unanswered, it will he considered as waived, or the irregularity will be cured by the verdict of the jury. The Court is therefore of opinion that the judgment of the Circuit Court of Peoria county be affirmed with costs.\nJudgment affirmed.\nActs of 1825, 85, 86.\nActs of 1827, 199; R. L. 280; Gale\u2019s Stat. 287.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Browne, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. McConnell, for the plaintiffs in error,",
      "L. Bigelow, for the defendant in error,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Ross and Job Ross, plaintiffs in error v. George Reddick, defendant in error.\nError to Peoria.\nStatutes defining the boundaries of counties, are public acts, and courts are bound judicially to take notice of them.\nIn an action of trespass quare clausum fregii, proof that the trespass was committed upon the premises described in the declaration, by the number of the section, township, and range (the said premises being in the proper county), is sufficient without evidence that the premises are situated in the county where the action is brought.\nThe official certificate of the Register of a Land Office, to any fact on record in his office, is competent evidence of such fact.\nIf one of several pleas be not answered, and the parties go to trial without any objection on the part of the defendant, the irregularity is waived.\nThis cause was tried before the Hon. Richard M. Young and a jury, at the September term, 1832, of the Peoria Circuit Court.\nOn the trial in the Court below, the following certificate was admitted as evidence on the part of the plaintiff, though objected to by the defendants, and its admission is one of the errors assigned :\n\u201cLand Office, Quincy, Illinois, Aug. 2d, 1832.\nI do certify that George Reddick, of Peoria county, Illinois, did on this day, in this office, prove a right of pre-emption to the East half of the S. W. Qr. Sec. 27, T. 10, N., R. 8 E. 4 principal meridian, under the provisions of the act of Congress of the 5th of April, 1832.\nSame. Alexander, Register.\u201d\nJudgment was rendered for the plaintiff in the Court below, for $8,8and costs.\nM. McConnell, for the plaintiffs in error,\ncited Stat. 1827, 199; Stat. 1825, 85; Laws of U. S. 1373, \u00a73.\nL. Bigelow, for the defendant in error,\ncited acts 1825, 85; 1 Blac. Com. 85, 86; 1 Stark. Ev. 162-3; 1 Chit. Plead. 159, 163, 197, 201, 360, 438, 440; Bac. Abr. Evidence, F., Statute L.; Commonwealth v. Inh. Springfield, 7 Mass. 9 ; Portsmouth Livery Co. v. Watson et al., 10 Mass. 91; Acts 1827, 199; Cutts et al. v. Spring et al., 15 Mass. 135; 3 Stark. Ev. 1436 et seq.; Brazzle et al. v. Usher, Breese 14; Clap v. Draper, 4 Mass. 266; Rehoboth v. Hunt, 1 Pick. 224.\nR. L. 280; Gale\u2019s Stat. 287."
  },
  "file_name": "0073-01",
  "first_page_order": 73,
  "last_page_order": 75
}