{
  "id": 5280900,
  "name": "The County of Knox, Plaintiff in Error, v. Cephas Arms, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "County of Knox v. Arms",
  "decision_date": "1859-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "175",
  "last_page": "180",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 Ill. 175"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 572,
    "char_count": 13053,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5783696268972947e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9252875360687052
    },
    "sha256": "a3ea327780dfbb57e914444f0b766b4362ea5df3146d602f50707f7f946b3a0e",
    "simhash": "1:0f29b6259eb8a4d2",
    "word_count": 2279
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:21.625654+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The County of Knox, Plaintiff in Error, v. Cephas Arms, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Breese, J.\nIt was error in this case to award an execution against the county on the judgment rendered against it. In such case our statute, (Scates\u2019 Comp. 300,) provides expressly when a judgment is so rendered, the court of the county shall order a warrant to be drawn on their treasurer for the amount of the judgment and costs, to be paid as other county debts, and \u201c nothing herein contained shall authorize any execution to be issued against lands or other property of any county of this State.\u201d\nUpon the other question presented, as to the liability of the county to pay for printed blanks, subpoenas, summons, etc., furnished by the clerk of the Circuit Court for the use of his office, we entertain no doubt.\nIt is contended by the county, that it is not liable, because the law allows the clerk a fee on issuing writs and other process ; that he is paid for the labor of preparing them, and must perform it.\nThe only statute upon the subject to which reference has been made, is Ch. 41, Sec. 32, (Scates\u2019 Comp. 509.) That section is as follows: \u201c The clerks of the Circuit and County Commissioners\u2019 Courts shall provide all the necessary books for their respective offices, and a safe press or presses with locks and keys for the safe-keeping of the archives of their respective offices; and the County Commissioners\u2019 Courts shall make allowances for the same, and for articles of stationery, necessary for their respective courts, out of the county treasury, from time to time.\u201d\nThe county claim, that these printed blanks are not articles of stationery, necessary for the court; that they are only to provide for the office, and the court, the necessary articles of stationery for the use of the court and the public\u2014such articles for which the clerk is allowed no fees for issuing, and for which no officer gets any pay, and which, therefore, the county ought to provide. That the law restricts \u201c articles of stationery \u201d to such as may be necessary for the court, and cannot include blanks for a clerk, which a county has no right by law to frame and to have printed and which must be framed by the clerk according to the parties and facts of each particular case, and that there is no law requiring process of any kind to be printed, and if the clerk to save time and labor procures printed forms, it is for his own profit and convenience, in which neither the county nor the public, have any concern.\nThis is all true, and being admitted does not determine the duty of the county as arising under, not only the proper construction of the act to which reference is made, but upon general views and principles, applicable to the case.\nThe county contends that stationery, as defined by lexicographers, cannot include blanks, and reference is made to Webster. He says \u201c stationer \u201d meant originally a bookseller from his occupying a stand or station; but at present, one who sells paper, quills, inkstands, pencils and other furniture for writing, and \u201c stationery \u201d means, the articles usually sold by stationers, as paper, ink, quills, etc. If this be so, and we do not doubt it, stationery must include printed blanks, as they are articles usually sold by stationers. So would steel pens, and pen-holders, wafers, mucilage, sand or sponge paper, and various other articles be deemed stationery. A stationer deals in blank paper, and in paper partially printed. Such is our experience, and blank forms are not unusually one of the main articles of their business. We think stationery includes blanks and are indispensable for the prompt performance of the duties of the office of clerk and therefore necessary for the court, the clerk\u2019s office being an indispensable appendage of a court.\nIt would seem to us, that the public have quite as great an interest that these blanks should be supplied as the clerk, for he gets his fee whether a writ is written or printed. The business of the county could not be transacted, without this facility being furnished the clerks, and it is evidently the intention of the legislature, that the county shall provide all that is necessary for such purpose be it stationery or what not. The speedy dispatch of the business of the courts is a matter in which the public have h deep interest, and the county must procure all reasonable facilities for that purpose. All such stationery must be furnished as the demands of the office require, in whatever articles it may consist.\nThe case of De Kalb County v. Beveridge, 16 Ill. R. 312, sustains these views. See also Armsby v. Warren County, 20 ib. 126.\nIt is really a matter of economy to the county, that it should furnish the blanks to facilitate the public business, and thus save expense.\nIt has been the uniform practice of this court from its first organization to this time, to audit the bills of its clerk for blanks. This amounts to a construction of the statute by this court entitled to consideration and weight.\nSuch has been not only the practical construction of this court but of the subordinate tribunals, from the earliest history of this State, and with this universal contemporaneous construction before it, the legislature has in its various revisions of the laws, repeatedly re-enacted this statute, without change of its phraseology, thus in the most direct mode, sanctioning the construction, as giving the true intention of the law makers. Without this, the maxim, \u201c Contempor\u00e1nea expositio fortistima est in lege,\u201d would well apply.\nThe other question made, by the allowance of a part of the claim by the board of supervisors, does not amount to anything. They did not allow the claim, and no object could be gained by proving a tender of part, which is the utmost to which the allowance can go.\nThat part of the judgment awarding execution in this case, will be reversed, and affirmed as to all else.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Breese, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Douglass & Craig, for Plaintiff in Error.",
      "Tyler & Sanford, for Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The County of Knox, Plaintiff in Error, v. Cephas Arms, Defendant in Error.\nERROR TO KNOX.\nOn a judgment against a county, it is erroneous to award an execution.\nCounties should pay for printed blanks, such as summons, subpoenas, etc., furnished by the clerk of the Circuit Court for the use of his office.\nThis was an appeal from the board of supervisors of Knox county, upon the refusal of that board to allow the clerk of the Circuit Court for the printing of blanks for the use of his office, and was tried in the Circuit Court of Knox county before a jury, at the October term, A. D. 1857. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Motion for a new trial by defendant, overruled.\nOn the trial it was agreed by the plaintiff and defendant, as evidence for the jury, that the articles charged in the bill of the plaintiff, filed in said cause to said county, were procured by the plaintiff and paid for by him, and that the amounts of blanks charged in said plaintiff\u2019s bill to said county, were printed for him for the use of the clerk\u2019s office of the Circuit Court of said county, which account is as follows:\nKnox County,\nTo C. Arms, Dr.\nApril25th, 1857, To 33 bush, coal used in my office........,.........P $4.95\nJune 20th, \u201c \u201c Cash paid John S. Winter for Blanks printed for and\nused in my office for Court purposes, as follows:\nTo 2 quires Capiases, at $1.50 per quire............... 3.00\n\u201c 2 \u201c Summons, \u201c \u201c \u201c ... 3.00\n\u201c 4 \u00ab tt tt it tt 6.00\net 2 (t o o 2.00\n\u201c 2 \u201c Attachments for witnesses, at $1.50 per quire, 3.00\nu 4 tt Supersedeas, \u201c 1.00 it tt 4.00\ntt 4 tt Eorthwith Capias, \u201c 1.50 tt tt 6.00\ntt 2 \u201c Capias for Clerk, \u201c 1.00 tt tt 2.00\ntt 4 tt Summons for G. Jurors, \u201c 1.00 tt tt 4.00\n\u201c 4 \u00ab Writs Attachment, \u201c 1.50 tt tt 6.00\n\u201c 2 \u201c Capias ad. respondendum, \u201c 1.50 tt tt 3.00\ntt ^ tt Wit. Certificates, \u201c 1.00 tt tt 1.00\n\u201c 6 \u201c Eee Bills and Executions, \u201c 1.50 tt ft 9.00\n\u00ab 4 \u00ab Ei. Eas., \u201c 1.00 tt tt 4.00\n\u201c 8 \u201c Witnesses\u2019 Affidavits....... 10.00\n\u201c Printing 6 Alphabets for Cases,...... 75\nJune 22nd, 1857, To 2 quires Procedendoes, at $1.00 per\u2019quire.......\u25a0.. . 2.00\n\"4 \u201c Transcript Executions, at $1.50 per quire... 6.00\nJuly 27th, 1857, To Cash paid C. Evans for work and material on case in\noffice......................................P 8.61\n\u201c 1 Deed Record, pr Charles Sonne, as per bill......P 15.50\n\u201c Pees in Criminal Cases, as pr Statute for 1857.....P 40.00\n\u201c 1 Bottle Ink...................................P 75\nThe above Bill is correct, $144.56\nC. ARMS, Clerk.\nThe plaintiff below called a witness, who testified, that he had been clerk of the Circuit Court of Henderson county, Illinois, for sixteen years; have been in Knox county for last five or six terms of Knox Court, assisting the circuit clerk; necessarily know the amount and kind of blanks required to do the business of the office; and then proposed to prove by him, that the said blanks in said bill of the plaintiff were necessary to do the business of said Circuit Court of Knox county, and asked the following question: Are the blanks charged in the bill of plaintiff necessary for the clerk in order to do the business of the court ? to the answering of which question the defendant objected. Court overruled objection and permitted witness to answer. The witness then testified: I have assisted the clerk of Knox Circuit Court for five or six list terms ; that the said blanks in said bill of plaintiff are necessary for said clerk; in order to transact the business of the office, it is necessary that the clerk should be furnished with blanks, and he could not do the business of the office without them; the saving of paper in getting blanks, would more than pay for blanks or printing of blanks ; one man with blanks, can perform more than ten men without blanks.\nThat a man could write out from twenty to fifty subpoenas in a day, and summonses about the same number; that it would take five clerks to do the business of Knox county without printed blanks.\n,, It was admitted by the parties, that plaintiff bought and paid for the blanks that were charged in his account, for his use as circuit clerk of Knox county, and that the quantity and price were reasonable.\nThe defendant, to maintain the issue on its part, then called Zelotes Cooly, the clerk of the county court of Knox county, with the records of the proceedings of the board of supervisors of said county, who testified that he was clerk of the County Court of said county, and that as such clerk he had the records of the proceedings of board of supervisors in his possession, and that he had the records of the proceedings of the board of supervisors of Knox county in relation to the account of plaintiff, sued on in this action, and that the book he had with him contained the proceedings of said board of supervisors, in relation to said account.\nThe defendant offered in evidence the record of the proceedings of said board of supervisors, in relation to the account of plaintiff, sued on in this action, from which proceedings and decision the said appeal was taken to this court, and to show what items of said account were allowed by said board of supervisors of said county, and what items they refused to allow said clerk. To the giving in evidence of said record the plaintiff objected, and the court sustained said objection.\nThe plaintiff asked the following instructions, which the court, Thompson, Judge, presiding, gave to the jury:\n1. The jury are instructed, that if they believe from the evidence, that the articles charged for in the plaintiff\u2019s account, were purchased and furnished by the plaintiff as the clerk of the Circuit Court of Knox county for use in his office, and that the quantity charged for is reasonable in amount, and that the articles charged for and embraced in said account, were necessary for the clerk in the performance of the duties of his office, that then the plaintiff is entitled to recover so much as said articles are reasonably worth.\n2. The jury are instructed, that blanks are stationery, within the meaning of the statute.\nTo the giving of said instructions the defendant excepted.\nThe defendant asked the following instructions :\n1. That if the jury believe, from the evidence, that the supervisors of Knox county allowed the plaintiff for all the items\n- in his bill except for the printing of blanks, and passed an order for the payment of the same to said plaintiff, the jury will only find a verdict for the amount of said bill which the supervisors refused to allow, if they believe the same was necessary stationery for the use of said office.\n2. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the supervisors of Knox county allowed the bill of the plaintiff with the exception of the printed blanks, and that plaintiff, as clerk of said court, gets a fee by statute for said writs from the parties to suits, they will find for the defendant.\nWhich said instructions the court refused to give, and the defendant excepted.\nWhereupon the jury found the issues for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $144.56.\nThe court overruled a motion for a new trial, and rendered judgment for the amount of verdict and costs of suit.\nDouglass & Craig, for Plaintiff in Error.\nTyler & Sanford, for Defendant in Error."
  },
  "file_name": "0175-01",
  "first_page_order": 177,
  "last_page_order": 182
}