{
  "id": 2478591,
  "name": "Charles Benjamin, plaintiff in error, v. Mark W. Delahay, defendant in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Benjamin v. Delahay",
  "decision_date": "1840-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "574",
  "last_page": "574",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Scam. 574"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 Ill. 574"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Scam. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2482413
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "473"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/2/0458-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 2084,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.370710586428907e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27442932001054887
    },
    "sha256": "7b3b430c1338d584c86bd77fd25fbfa08fe546d5ac1cd149835fa00ddb9acb3d",
    "simhash": "1:88edd62116ea9cdc",
    "word_count": 369
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:58:58.619010+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Benjamin, plaintiff in error, v. Mark W. Delahay, defendant in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Treat, Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of covenant brought on a bond for the payment of money.\nThe bond is set out, in /tree verba, in both counts of the declaration. \u25a0\nPrevious to the trial in the Court below, the defendant moved the Court for a continuance of the cause, on the ground that no copy of the bond sued on had been filed. The motion was overruled, a trial had, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.\nThe defendant now assigns for error the decision of the Court in overruling the motion for a continuance.\nThe sixth section of the practice act requires the plaintiff to file with his declaration, a copy of the instrument on which suit is brought, ten days before the Court, at which the process is returnable; and in default thereof, the Court shall continue the cause, on the application of the defendant, at the costs of the plaintiff.\nThe object of this requisition is, that the defendant may be notified of the particular demand sought to be recovered.\nThe Court is of the opinion, that that object is as fully attained by a literal description of the instrument in the declaration, as by the filing of a detached copy; and that in this case the statute has been substantially complied with.\nThe judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs.\nJudgment affirmed.\nNote. See The People v. Pearson, 1 Scam. 458, 473.\nWilson, Chief Justice, was not present on the argument of this cause.\nR. L. 488 ; Gale\u2019s Stat. 530.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Treat, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Lamborn, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "M. McConnel and J. A. McDougall, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Benjamin, plaintiff in error, v. Mark W. Delahay, defendant in error.\nError to Scott.\nWhere a written instrument upon which an action is brought, is set out, in hcec verba, in the declaration, it is unnecessary to file a copy of the same with the declaration.\nThis cause was heard in the Scott Circuit Court, at the October term, 1839, before the Hon. Samuel H. Treat and a jury. Verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff for $ 1037,87. The defendant brought the cause to this Court by writ of error.\nJ. Lamborn, for the plaintiff in error.\nM. McConnel and J. A. McDougall, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0574-01",
  "first_page_order": 592,
  "last_page_order": 592
}