{
  "id": 2454024,
  "name": "Alexander Telfer v. Hoskins, Heiskell & Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Telfer v. Hoskins, Heiskell & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1863-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "165",
  "last_page": "168",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 Ill. 165"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill. 49",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5287122
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/24/0049-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 288,
    "char_count": 4716,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.835489500768558e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5337029301708324
    },
    "sha256": "f9445c46e3bf6bb78a47d65a8cf647dedc8d2f54a462cf09968fc968aeabcda8",
    "simhash": "1:5703d0ad0d135b7f",
    "word_count": 843
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:57.113711+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Alexander Telfer v. Hoskins, Heiskell & Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Caton\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was a judgment by default, and it .is claimed that the clerk assessed the damage too much by three dollars and fifty cents. If this be so, and admitting the power of this court to reform and reduce the judgment, as was done in Boyle v. Carter, 24 Ill. 49, in the exercise of a sound discretion, instead of compelling the party to apply to the court below, within the proper time, for a re-assessment of the damages; this is certainly not a case which should call upon us to exercise this power. This should only be done in extraordinary cases.\nThe next and principal complaint is, that in all the orders of the court below the clerk omitted the entry, at length, of the names of the parties to the cause. The cause was properly commenced and entered upon the orders of the court, with the full names of the parties. After this it was only necessary to so designate the orders that there could be no mistake as to the cause in which they were entered. This is, no doubt, generally best done by placing the full title of the cause at the head of each order, but if another designation is given, or other means of identification adopted, so as to clearly point out in what cause the order is made, it answers every legal requirement. There may be cases where it would be advisable to abbreviate the title of the cause in the orders, as where the parties are very numerous with very hard names. This is simply a question of identity, and not of error. If the orders are identified as entered in this cause, then they are correct and well entered. If they are not identified as entered in this cause, then they have nothing to do with it, and the defendant has no cause to complain of them for they do not affect him.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Caton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. McRoberts & Goodspeed, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Mr. D. F. Cameron, for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Alexander Telfer v. Hoskins, Heiskell & Co.\n1. Practice nsr the Supreme Court \u2014 correction of erroneous assessment of damages. Although the Supreme Court has the 'power, when the proper data appears in the record, to correct an erroneous assessment of damages upon a promissory note, and to render a proper judgment without remitting the party to his remedy in the court below, yet such power will be exercised only in extraordinary cases.\n2. In this case, the action being upon a promissory note, and a default entered, the clerk assessed the damages at a sum exceeding the proper amount by three dollars and fifty- cents, and this was assigned for error; but the party was remitted to his remedy in the court below.\n3. Parties names \u2014 orders of court. In giving the names of parties in an order of court, it is only necessary to so state them that there can be no mistake as to the cause in which the orders were entered. But if another designation be given, or other means of identification adopted, so as clearly to point out the cause in which the order is made, it answers every legal requirement.\n4. Error\u2014 as to identity of orders in a cause. Whether an order of court is so entitled as to show in what cause it was entered, is a question of identity, not of error.\nWrit of Error to the County Court of Grundy County; the Hon. Colquhoun Grant, Judge, presiding.\nFrancis Hoskins, Colsin Heiskell, .James F. Heiskell and Thomas J. Young, partners, doing business under the name, style and firm of Hoskins, Heiskell & Co., instituted an action of assumpsit in the court below, on the 18th day of February, 1858, against Alexander Telfer, upon the following promissory note:\n\u201c $500.\nMorris, Ill., Oct. 20, 1855.\n\u201c On the 1st December, 1857, after date, I promise to pay to the order of Hanna & Le Boy, five hundred dollars, at the banking office of C. H. & H. C. Goold, in Morris, 111., value received, with interest at six per cent.\n\u201cAlexander Telfer.\u201d \u25a0\nIndorsed, \u201cHanna & Lb Boy.\u201d\nA judgment, by default, was entered on the first day tif Maivdt, 1858. The clerk assessed the damages at $574,50, and final judgment was entered for that amount.\nThe praecipe, summons and declaration all set forth the parties\u2019 names at length, but in all of the entries upon the order book in the court below, the style of the suit was as follows:\nHoskins, Heiskell & Co., v. Alexander Teleer.\nAssumpsit.\nTelfer, the defendant below, sued- out this writ of error, and questions the correctness of the proceedings in the County Court, upon two grounds:\nFirst, that the assessment of damages was for too large a sum, by three dollars and fifty cents; and, Second, that in giving the style of the suit in the entries upon the order book, the names of all parties should have been set forth at length.\nMessrs. McRoberts & Goodspeed, for the plaintiff in error.\nMr. D. F. Cameron, for the defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0165-01",
  "first_page_order": 165,
  "last_page_order": 168
}