{
  "id": 2478305,
  "name": "Cornelius C. Van Horn, plaintiff in error, v. William Jones, Henry B. Clark, and Byram King, defendants in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Van Horn v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1839-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "2",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Scam. 1"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 Ill. 1"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 178,
    "char_count": 3074,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.741,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39386234487029936
    },
    "sha256": "0f9ba25a6ac64e89db09dc778bc54bbe5ddc7f1fb424ba31711caff3075d49c3",
    "simhash": "1:a55af59515e84457",
    "word_count": 531
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:58:58.619010+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cornelius C. Van Horn, plaintiff in error, v. William Jones, Henry B. Clark, and Byram King, defendants in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Lockwood, Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of assumpsit commenced by Jones, King, and Clark against Van Horn, in the Municipal Court of the city of Chicago. The summons was directed to the sheriff of Will county, and by him served on the defendant below. The declaration contains a count for goods sold and delivered, and the common money counts, but does not contain any averment that the plaintiffs were residents of the county of Cook, or that the contract was specifically made payable in that county.\nJudgment was rendered by default against the defendant, the plaintiff in error in this Court.\nWithout intending to decide whether the Municipal Court of the city of Chicago could send its process into any other county than that of Cook, it is clear that when it does, the same averments must be made to give the Municipal Court jurisdiction, that are necessary to give a Circuit Court jurisdiction in like cases.\nThis Court has repeatedly decided that the Circuit Court of any county cannot send its process to another county, unless the declaration contains an averment that the cause of action accrued in the county where the plaintiff resides, and in which the suit is brought, or that the contract upon which the suit is instituted, is specifically made payable in the county in which the action is commenced.\nIt was, however, suggested by the counsel for the defendants in error, that the act repealing a part of the \u201c Act to incorporate the City of Chicago,\" which provides \u201c That it shall be no ground of error in or to any judgment heretofore rendered in the said Municipal Court, that it does not appear by the record or proceedings that the defendant resided in the said county of Cook,\u201d has cured the error.\nThis provision of the act has no manner of application to the objection raised to the declaration in this cause. The error relied on is, that the Municipal Court had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the declaration containing none of the averments above mentioned, and the defendant being a resident of another county. The judgment of the Court below is therefore reversed with costs.\nJudgment reversed.\nActs of Incorporation of 1838 - 39.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lockwood, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Y. Scammon, I. N. Arnold, and M. D. Ogden, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Justin Butterfield, for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cornelius C. Van Horn, plaintiff in error, v. William Jones, Henry B. Clark, and Byram King, defendants in error.\nError to the Municipal Court of the City of Chicago.\nThe same averments are necessary to give the Municipal Court of the city of Chicago jurisdiction, when it sends its process to a foreign county, that would he requisite in a like ease, in a Circuit Court.\nAn averment of the residence of the plaintiff, and that the cause of action accrued, or that the contract was specifically made payable, in the county where suit is instituted, is necessary where process is sent to a foreign county.\nThe act abolishing the Municipal Court of the city of Chicago, has no application to a case where process is sent to another county.\nJ. Y. Scammon, I. N. Arnold, and M. D. Ogden, for the plaintiff in error.\nJustin Butterfield, for the defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 19,
  "last_page_order": 20
}