{
  "id": 2469124,
  "name": "Daniel Ellis et al., plaintiffs in error, v. William Ewbanks, defendant in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ellis v. Ewbanks",
  "decision_date": "1841-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "190",
  "last_page": "191",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Scam. 190"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 Ill. 190"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "4 Johns. 508",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Johns. 98",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Johns. 95",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "case_ids": [
        2129827
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/johns/3/0095-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 140,
    "char_count": 1680,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.684,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4975956836136062e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6644968490440949
    },
    "sha256": "fcd583122e752d63f5fdfec0d503d907ad61f2d50dcd921624693f3458e7b513",
    "simhash": "1:9fae38126fdcc2fb",
    "word_count": 287
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:41:32.527895+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Daniel Ellis et al., plaintiffs in error, v. William Ewbanks, defendant in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wilson, Chief Justice:\nThe motion in this case must be overruled. Though it is probable that the clerk of the Circuit Court, by mistake, omitted the word \u201c nine\u201d after the words \u201c eighteen hundred and thirtyyet there is nothing appearing upon the record which can be regarded as evidence that such is the fact, so as to authorize this Court to interfere.\nMotion denied..",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wilson, Chief Justice:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. H. Browning, for the defendant in error,",
      "J. A. McDougall, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Daniel Ellis et al., plaintiffs in error, v. William Ewbanks, defendant in error.\nError to Adams.\nThe Supreme Court will not permit an amendment to be made in that Court, of the process issued from a Circuit Court, by correcting a probable mistake of the clerk of the Circuit Court, in the date of the process.\nThe error assigned in this case arose out of the fact, that the summons was dated \u201c eighteen hundred and thirty.\u201d The record showed that the proceedings were commenced in 1839.\nO. H. Browning, for the defendant in error,\nmoved to amend the record, by adding the word or syllable \u201c nine\u201d to the word \u201c thirty,\u201d alleging that it was omitted by the clerk of the Court below, through inadvertence. He contended : The Court in which judgment is rendered, will allow amendments in furtherance of justice, after writ of error brought, and joinder in error, although the amendment removes the error assigned. Tillotson v. Cheetham, 3 Johns. 95.\nThe Court for the correction of errors, under the influence of a liberal disposition to correct mistakes in form, permitted even the transcript of a record to be amended in that Court. Tillotson v. Cheetham, 3 Johns. 98.\nIf the matter assigned for error is properly amendable, this Court may do it. Cheetham v. Tillotson, 4 Johns. 508.\nJ. A. McDougall, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0190-01",
  "first_page_order": 206,
  "last_page_order": 207
}