{
  "id": 2477638,
  "name": "John Jackson, plaintiff in error, v. William H. Haskell, defendant in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jackson v. Haskell",
  "decision_date": "1840-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "565",
  "last_page": "565",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Scam. 565"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 Ill. 565"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 2089,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.741,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.031871520058411e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9367501734657117
    },
    "sha256": "d0cd36fa5dfd8c0a291f58307de246aa4221b563213b2ceb31b2f5e5b1c5a128",
    "simhash": "1:65a2b7ff1a69be43",
    "word_count": 365
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:58:58.619010+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Jackson, plaintiff in error, v. William H. Haskell, defendant in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Breese, Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis is an action commenced by petition and summons, by Haskell against Jackson. The petition describes a note executed by Jackson to one Z. Philips, and alleges, \u201con which note are the following assignments,\u201d to wit: \u201c Zachariah Philips,\u201d \u201c Onslow Peters,\u201d and concludes with a prayer of judgment for his debt and damages, &c.\nThe summons is in debt, and an issue was made up on the plea of nil debet, which, by consent, was tried by the Court without a jury. The Court \u201c find the issue for the plaintiff, and assess the damages by reason of the premises, to two hundred and fifty dollars,\u201d and judgment accordingly, for the damages so assessed.\nThe assignment of errors questions first, the correctness of the judgment, it being in damages, when it should have been in debt, and secondly, the right of the plaintiff below to recover, the note being endorsed in blank only.\nThe second error assigned has been repeatedly held to be none.\n' The note is in the power of the assignee, and under his control, and before or upon trial, the blank can be filled up with his name.\nThe first error is well assigned. The proceedings are in debt, and consequently a verdict and judgment in damages, as in this case, is erroneous.\nThis error, although manifestly the result of inadvertence, is sufficient to reverse the judgment, which is done accordingly, with costs, and the cause remanded, with instructions to set aside the judgment, and award a venire de novo.\nJudgment reversed.\n) Bayley on Bills 104 ; Gillham v. State Bank of Illinois, Ante 245.\n) Jones v. Lloyd et al., Breese 174.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Breese, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "S. T. Logan, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "O. Peters and Jacob Gale, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Jackson, plaintiff in error, v. William H. Haskell, defendant in error.\nError to Peoria.\nA blank endorsement upon a promissory note is under the control of the assignee, and may be filled up with his name, before or at the trial of a suit upon the note. In an action of debt, by petition and summons, it is error to render verdict and judgment for damages.\nS. T. Logan, for the plaintiff in error.\nO. Peters and Jacob Gale, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0565-01",
  "first_page_order": 583,
  "last_page_order": 583
}