{
  "id": 8500219,
  "name": "Daniel P. Vanmeter et al. v. Pleasant Durham et al., Administrators of Thomas W. Lyon, deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vanmeter v. Durham",
  "decision_date": "1863-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "237",
  "last_page": "238",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 Ill. 237"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5243892
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/26/0348-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5243892
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/26/0348-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1901,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20509265211987263
    },
    "sha256": "6c72ea9308534f9d79ea33337044f1b3b33f27773c4da25c86e9f5dbe94193ff",
    "simhash": "1:2212b4444a7d68d6",
    "word_count": 316
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:01:21.455791+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Daniel P. Vanmeter et al. v. Pleasant Durham et al., Administrators of Thomas W. Lyon, deceased."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice CatoN\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis is the return of service of which complaint is made : \u201c The within named Daniel P. Yanmeter waived reading, and accepted service, this 29th day of March, 1862. James W. Buegess, Sheriff.\u201d In Maher v. Bull, 26 Ill. 348, we decided that' such a service as this, is insufficient, and hence it is unnecessary to multiply words on the subject. Our reasons for this opinion are there given.\nThe judgment is reversed, and cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice CatoN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Glovee, Cook & Campbell, for the plaintiffs in error.",
      "Messrs. Belaud & BlaNchaed, for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Daniel P. Vanmeter et al. v. Pleasant Durham et al., Administrators of Thomas W. Lyon, deceased.\n\"Writ \u2014 service. The return upon a summons in assumpsit was as follows ; 11 The within named Daniel P. Vanmeter waived reading, and accepted service, this 29th day of March, 1862.\u201d The service was insufficient to authorize a default.\nWrit op Error to the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. Charles E. Starr, Judge, presiding.\nIn an action of assumpsit instituted in the court below by the administrators of Lyon against the plaintiffs in error, the summons was properly served upon one of the defendants therein, and as to the other, the sheriff returned that \u201c the within named Daniel P. Yanmeter waived reading, and accepted service, this 29th day of March, 1862.\u201d\nSubsequently, a default was taken against both the defendants below, and upon an assessment of damages being had, final judgment was entered; thereupon they sued out this writ of error, and insist that the Circuit Court erred in rendering tbe judgment, because there was no service of process upon Daniel P. Yan meter.\nMessrs. Glovee, Cook & Campbell, for the plaintiffs in error.\nThe return of service of a summons, which states that the party was informed of the contents of the process, and accepted service, is insufficient. Maher v. Bull, 26 Ill. 348.\nMessrs. Belaud & BlaNchaed, for the defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0237-01",
  "first_page_order": 239,
  "last_page_order": 240
}