{
  "id": 2451738,
  "name": "Joseph Brewster, Plaintiff in Error, v. Jeremiah Grover, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brewster v. Grover",
  "decision_date": "1862-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "246",
  "last_page": "248",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ill. 246"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 3063,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "sha256": "8f05784019d87fe63974282e365bea4f37b64f0a550d40dec65887daec1f47ab",
    "simhash": "1:9eaf7ebc317f6fac",
    "word_count": 539
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:28.588554+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph Brewster, Plaintiff in Error, v. Jeremiah Grover, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Breese, J.\nIt is quite immaterial, under our statute regulating and defining the duties of justices of the peace, what form of action may be specified in the summons. The great inquiry always is, had the justice of the peace jurisdiction of the subject-matter before him?\nAs to the merits of this case, they were all with the plaintiff. The defendant was responsible for the Brewster note. He promised to collect it, and might have done so. At any rate, he refused to surrender it to the true owner, on proper demand made for it.\nThe judgment is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Breese, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. C. Gray, for Plaintiff in Error.",
      "D. L. Hough, for Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph Brewster, Plaintiff in Error, v. Jeremiah Grover, Defendant in Error.\nERROR TO LA SALLE.\nIt is immaterial what form of action may be specified in a summons issued by a justice of the peace, if he had jurisdiction of the subject-matter.\nThis suit was commenced before a-justice of the peace on the following summons:\nSTATE OF ILLINOIS, >\nla salle counit, ) ss' The People of the State of Illinois, to any Constable of said County, Gbeetino : You are hereby commanded to summon Joseph Brewster to appear before me, at my office in Earlville, on the 18 th day of July, A. D. 1859, at 10 o\u2019clock A. M., to answer the complaint of Jeremiah Grover, for a failure to pay him a certain sum, not exceeding one hundred dollars, and hereof make due return as the law directs. Given under my hand and seal, this 11th day of July, A. D. 1869. H. A. CHASE, [seal.]\nJustice of tine Peace,\nTranscript shows as follows : \u201cDemand $60, on note\u201d\nTried before Justice Chase, and verdict for Grover for $40.\nAppealed to Circuit Court by Brewster.\nCause submitted to court for trial by agreement.\nThe defendant in the Circuit Court asked for judgment, on the ground that the summons was either in debt or assumpsit, and in either case the plaintiff must show that Brewster had received payment on the Hoag note; but the court decided, that under the summons the plaintiff was at liberty to proceed by trover, and accordingly rendered j udgment for the plaintiff and against the defendant for forty dollars, the amount of the Hoag note. The defendant moved for a new trial, which the court overruled, and rendered judgment against the defendant.\nIt is hereby stipulated, that the only question before the Supreme Court, on the appeal in the above cause, shall be as to whether the plaintiff can recover, in an action of trover, upon the\u00bb summons in this cause issued by the justice of the peace-. March 7th, 1860. OLIVER C. GRAY,\nAttorney for Plaintiff\\ Brewster.'\nDAVID L. HOUGH,\nAttorney for J. Grover.\nAssignment of errors:\nThe court below erred in admitting evidence to sustain an action of trover under the summons in this cause.\nThe court below erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error for a new trial.\nThe judgment in this case was rendered against Brewster, for the amount of a note against one Hoag belonging to Brewster, which had been given to Grover to collect from Hoag, and which Grover refused to return.\nO. C. Gray, for Plaintiff in Error.\nD. L. Hough, for Defendant in Error."
  },
  "file_name": "0246-01",
  "first_page_order": 246,
  "last_page_order": 248
}