{
  "id": 5287272,
  "name": "Martin Ryan et al. v. James L. Anderson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ryan v. Anderson",
  "decision_date": "1861-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "652",
  "last_page": "652",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 Ill. 652"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 127,
    "char_count": 1295,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.592,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.907597123529909e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4197893390695751
    },
    "sha256": "f097d381c1ce3218601aa72d87174f1e42b55683b6a09b1873309d5a3c565206",
    "simhash": "1:da3a507c37456ae0",
    "word_count": 214
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:23:31.160386+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Martin Ryan et al. v. James L. Anderson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, consent will give jurisdiction over the person; by agreement, these parties are properly in court. Although error was the appropriate mode of procedure to bring the parties before the court, yet the remedy does not depend upon the process, and the agreement precludes the parties from taking advantage of the means adopted to bring them before this tribunal.\nMotion denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. G. Skinner, for the Motion.",
      "0. L. Higbee, Contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SPRINGFIELD, JANUARY TERM, 1861.\nMartin Ryan et al. v. James L. Anderson.\nWhere parties by agreement consent to an appeal, it will be sustained, although error was the appropriate 'remedy.\nThis was a motion to dismiss an appeal, because the judgment below was for costs only, and the action did not relate to a franchise or freehold; and because the judgment was in favor of the parties appealing; and they did not sign the appeal bond.\nThe record shows the following agreement: \u201cIt is agreed that this case may be appealed to the Supreme Oourt upon the bond of William McMurphy, R. M. Worthington, and George Metz, directors of said township, without further security.\u201d\nThe action was commenced by certain parties, as collector, treasurer and school trustees of township two, etc., in Schuyler county.\nO. G. Skinner, for the Motion.\n0. L. Higbee, Contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0652-01",
  "first_page_order": 644,
  "last_page_order": 644
}