{
  "id": 5216757,
  "name": "William Patterson, Adm'r, v. Andrew J. Steele",
  "name_abbreviation": "Patterson v. Steele",
  "decision_date": "1864-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "272",
  "last_page": "274",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "36 Ill. 272"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill. 283",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2588489
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/16/0283-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 4943,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.612442345255457e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5267361147310132
    },
    "sha256": "94fd487a2145d3663c2dfe4d23a9a6cc2111664fbbce60da691cd481f1a47d2e",
    "simhash": "1:1c43a6404052fdc8",
    "word_count": 858
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:55.334834+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Patterson, Adm\u2019r, v. Andrew J. Steele."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe question presented by this record is of easy solution. The action was debt on a note under seal, and the pleas were, non est factum, n\u00fc d\u00e9bet, and payment. A trial was had by jury who found \u201c the issue \u201d for the defendant, and that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant, in the sum of two hundred and seventy-nine dollars and eighty-nine cents, for which the court gave judgment against the plaintiff, to be paid in due course of administration.\nEo notice, or bill of particulars, accompanied either plea. Section nineteen of our practice act, provides that a defendant in any action upon a contract or agreement, express or implied, having claims or demands against the plaintiff, may plead the same, or give notice thereof under the general issue as is provided in the fourteenth section, or under the plea of payment; and the same, or such part thereof as the defendant shall prove on trial, shall be set off and allowed against the plaintiff\u2019s demand, and a verdict shall be given for the balance due; and if it shall appear that the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant, the jury shall find a verdict for the defendant, and certify to the court the amount so found, for which the court shall give judgment for the defendant, etc. Scates\u2019 Comp. 254, section 14, to which reference is here made, provides the notice must be in writing of the special matters intended to be relied on for a defense, and must be clear and explicit.\nThis notice, like the plea of set-off, is in the nature of a cross-action by the defendant against the plaintiff, and, like a declaration, must state the nature of the defendant\u2019s claim, so that the matters thereof can be fully understood and fairly litigated.\nNothing of this kind appears in this record, and therefore it was not competent for the jury to find the verdict they did find, nor was the court authorized to enter up a judgment on such finding.\nThe defendant, by his pleading, claimed nothing of the plaintiff. He only claimed the debt was paid, and it is a well-settled doctrine, that a party cannot recover that which he does not claim, nor recover beyond the amount of his claim.\nThe notice required, if given under the general issue, or under the plea of payment, stands in the place of a special plea, and is treated as part of the record. It must develop the defendant\u2019s case, so that the plaintiff shall not be taken by surprise, or be compelled to. fight in the dark.\nThis judgment, for the reasons given, cannot be sustained, it must be reversed, and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. W. H. Underwood, and Mr. Amos Watts, for the Plaintiff in Error,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Patterson, Adm\u2019r, v. Andrew J. Steele.\n1. Practice \u2014 what is improper vender certain pleas. In an action of debt by an administrator, where the defendant pleads non est factum, nil debet, and payment, it is erroneous to render judgment against the plaintiff for such amount as the defendant may have proved the plaintiff\u2019s intestate was indebted to the defendant.\n2. Same\u2014defendant by plea claiming nothing of plaintiff, can recover nothing. By such pleading, the defendant claimed nothing of the plaintiff\u2019s intestate, and could, therefore, recover nothing.\n3. Same\u2014what is the proper practice in such case. The proper mode to reach that object, is by plea of set-off under section 19 of the practice act, and a proper issue made up thereon, or by notice, clear and specific, under the general issue.\nError to the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. J. Gillespie, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action of debt in the St. Clair Circuit Court, originally commenced by George Wickline against Andrew J. Steele, and revived in the name of William Patterson, administrator of Wickline. The action was brought on a writing obligatory, executed by Steele to Wickline for the sum of four hundred dollars.\nThe defendant pleaded, to the first count, non est factum ; to the common counts, nil debet; and to the declaration generally, payment. The jury found the \u201cissue\u201d for the defendant, and that plaintiff\u2019s intestate was indebted to the defendant in the sum of two hundred and seventy-nine dollars and eighty-nine cents, for which the court rendered a judgment against the administrator, Patterson, to be paid in due course of administration.\nThe case is brought to this court by writ of error.\nMr. W. H. Underwood, and Mr. Amos Watts, for the Plaintiff in Error,\nassign this error : That the court erred in rendering judgment on an informal verdict, and in rendering a judgment against the plaintiff; and they make the point: that under the issues, the verdict for a specific sum, and judgment thereon against the plaintiff, was not warranted by law\u2014that it is only where defendant has filed a plea or notice of set-off that such a verdict and judgment are proper. Practice Act, see. 19. Such notice of set-off is regarded as a plea, and is a part of the record. Sherman v. Dutch, 16 Ill. 283; Miller v. Miller, ib. 296."
  },
  "file_name": "0272-01",
  "first_page_order": 272,
  "last_page_order": 274
}