{
  "id": 2485472,
  "name": "William Ogle, plaintiff in error v. Ananias Coffey, who sues for the use of John Beck, defendant in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ogle v. Coffey ex rel. Beck",
  "decision_date": "1835-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "239",
  "last_page": "239",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Scam. 239"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 Ill. 239"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 134,
    "char_count": 1627,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.708,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.55124389530443e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9470835944489427
    },
    "sha256": "ecb63e3616697aa41b5b8708aefee345ca1c8e61c2c135f05f464367b9a2a421",
    "simhash": "1:1f1739ea880f3afe",
    "word_count": 285
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:34:33.017060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Ogle, plaintiff in error v. Ananias Coffey, who sues for the use of John Beck, defendant in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of debt on a judgment rendered in the State of Kentucky. Judgment was rendered by default in the Madison Circuit Court.\nThe principal error assigned is, the want of personal service of the summons on the defendant. The return of the sheriff is not in compliance with the provision of the law directing the manner of making the service and return by the sheriff. The return of the sheriffis, \u201cExecuted Oct. 18th, 1832, as commanded within.\u201d\nWhether the date specified, is intended for the date of the day of service, or is the day on which the summons is returned, is wholly uncertain. The manner of making the service is still more doubtful. Whether it was by reading the summons to the defendant, or by delivering a copy, is left to conjecture, and it is impossible to say which course was adopted, or whether either was pursued.\nThe case falls directly within the rule laid down in the cases of Wilson v. Greathouse, and Clemson and Hunter v. Hamm, decided in June term, 1835.\nThe judgment is reversed with costs.\nJudgment reversed.\nLockwood and Browne, Justices, gave no opinion in this case, not being present at the argument of the cause.\nAnte 174, 176.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. B. Thomas and D. Prickett, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "J. Semple, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Ogle, plaintiff in error v. Ananias Coffey, who sues for the use of John Beck, defendant in error.\nError to Maclison.\nThe.return of a sheriff should stale the manner in which the process was executed. \u201c Executed Oct. 18th, 1832, as commanded within,\u201d is not a sufficient return to a summons.\nJ. B. Thomas and D. Prickett, for the plaintiff in error.\nJ. Semple, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0239-01",
  "first_page_order": 239,
  "last_page_order": 239
}