{
  "id": 5216516,
  "name": "Noah Guyman v. Albert H. Burlingame",
  "name_abbreviation": "Guyman v. Burlingame",
  "decision_date": "1864-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "201",
  "last_page": "204",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "36 Ill. 201"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 4546,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.6684160138613776e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8908413193201611
    },
    "sha256": "be3f119f7c7849f43488fa5a7cce77caee9f70a4040a4bbb0aadc3c666f6fd4a",
    "simhash": "1:8ed28ce4a3de310a",
    "word_count": 802
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:55.334834+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Noah Guyman v. Albert H. Burlingame."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court;\nTwo questions are presented by this record. First, can the ordinary process of a Circuit Court be executed by a special bailiff, under the appointment pro hac vice of the sheriff? And next, was the note sued on a bet on an election authorized by law?\nAt common law several kinds of bailiffs were recognized, and among them sheriff\u2019s bailiffs, who are regarded as servants to sheriffs of counties, to execute writs, warrants, etc., for whose misdemeanors or defaults the sheriffs were answerable. Sheriffs had under them an under-sheriff, bailiffs, jailer, etc., for all of whom they were answerable. Jacob\u2019s Law Diet., title, \u201cSheriff.\u201d\nWe do not suppose our statute respecting sheriffs and coroners has taken away or in any manner abridged this common law power of the sheriff to appoint a special bailiff on an emergency, his appointment being indorsed on the writ. We believe it is the general practice. It seems a power necessary for him to possess in order to the due performanceipfrth^e various duties devolving on him, which he^anft^periorm in person. And as all their acts are doriA'hhythe namff\u00f3fHhg sheriff, and for which he is answerable, jmdnjury g\u00e1njresult teq the public, but much good, by the proper exercise of this power.\nOn the other point we are constrained to hold, on the authority of the case of Gordon v. Casey, 23 Ill. 71, that the note sued on was, to all intents and purposes, a bet on an election authorized by the laws of this State, and consequently void.\nThe judgment, for this reason, must be reversed.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Nelson & Sanders, for the Plaintiff in Error,",
      "Mr. H. K S. O\u2019Melveny, for the Defendant in Error, contra:"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Noah Guyman v. Albert H. Burlingame.\n1. Bailiff\u2014sheriff has power to appoint. A sheriff has power to appoint a special bailiff to execute a writ, he indorsing the appointment on the writ.\n2. Same \u2014 the retv/rn being in the name of sheriff, makes him responsible. The return on the writ being in the name of the sheriff, he is responsible for its truth.\n3. Gaming\u2014what is a bet on an eledion. A note for money, payable if \u201cAbraham Lincoln receives the electoral vote of the State of Illinois,\u201d is a bet on an election, and void on its face.\nError to the Circuit Court of Randolph county; the Hon.. S. L. Bryan, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action of debt, commenced in the Randolph Circuit Court by Burlingame, against Guyman and Seaburn J. Moore, by writ of summons.\nThe summons was in the usual form, bearing date April 5, 1861, and directed to the sheriff, on which was this indorsement: \u201cI hereby appoint R. H. Jenkins special bailiff to execute this writ, April 9th, 1861. M. S. McCormick, Shff. R. C., Ills.\u201d\nThe return was as follows: \u201cI have executed the within writ by reading to the within named Noah Guyman, Seaburn Moore not in my county. April 12th, 1861. M. S. McCormick, Sheriff of R. 0., Ill, by R. H. Jenkins, special bailiff.\u201d\nThe action was brought on a note, of which the following is a copy:\n\u201c Thirty days after date, we, or either of us, promise to pay A. H. Burlingame, or bearer, one hundred and sixty dollars, for value received, providing Abraham Lincoln receives the electoral votes of the State of Illinois. Eden, Oct. 15, 1860.\nNOAH GUYMAN. [seal.]\nS. J. MOORE. [seal.]\u201d\nThe defendant, Guyman, failing to appear, a judgment was entered against him, by default, for the amount of the note, with the interest thereon, and the costs.\nFrom this judgment, Guyman prosecutes this writ of error, and assigns as error\u2014\nFirst, That the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the per: son of the plaintiff in error, for the reason there was no legal service of the summons upon him, the sheriff of Randolph county having no legal authority to make a special bailiff for .the purpose of serving the writ upon him.\nSecond, The .note sued on was void on its face.\nMessrs. Nelson & Sanders, for the Plaintiff in Error,\nmade these points.\n1 . There was no service upon the plaintiff in error, as required by law, the court had no jurisdiction over his person. The judgment is consequently erroneous. Purple\u2019s Statutes, Sec. 20, p. 1120.\n2. The writing sued on is, on its face, void. Purple\u2019s Statutes, Sec. 1, Vol. 1, p. 592. Consequently, the judgment rendered on the same, is a nullity and void. Gordon v. Casey, 23 Ill. 71.\nMr. H. K S. O\u2019Melveny, for the Defendant in Error, contra:\nBailiffs, at common law, may serve process. 3 Black. Com. 344, 345; 8 Bacon Abr., top p. 677.\nThe sheriff executed this writ, as the return is in his name.\nThe note, on its face, is not necessarily void \u2014 it may or may not have been a bet."
  },
  "file_name": "0201-01",
  "first_page_order": 201,
  "last_page_order": 204
}