{
  "id": 5294763,
  "name": "Abraham Jarrard v. James R. Harper",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jarrard v. Harper",
  "decision_date": "1867-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "457",
  "last_page": "458",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "42 Ill. 457"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 2290,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.446,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.6139897148934085e-07,
      "percentile": 0.888339049882831
    },
    "sha256": "c253513e88672025caba334e0a532442664a9acbcc9ff50f21306c5a1b1c676a",
    "simhash": "1:8ec65f346a3fb4dc",
    "word_count": 394
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:10.474636+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Abraham Jarrard v. James R. Harper."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of replevin, commenced before a justice of the peace of Bond county, brought by James It. Harper against Abraham Jarrard, and taken by appeal to the County Court, where a verdict and judgment were rendered for Harper, to reverse which the case is brought here by writ of error.\nThe whole subject of controversy is of trifling amount.\nThe only question in the case is, as to the propriety of the instruction given by the court. It was this: \u201c The court instructs the jury, that, if they believe, from the evidence, that the hog in question is plaintiff\u2019s hog, they will find the defendant guilty.\u201d\nIt is contended by the plaintiff in error, that proof of a demand should have been embraced in the instruction as a necessary element to justify a verdict for the plaintiff, and in this he is no doubt technically correct; but, as there was clear proof of a demand before suit brought, and the evidence sustains the verdict, we cannot reverse the judgment. The form of the verdict is not precisely right, but the proceedings were ore terms, and the finding was equivalent to a finding of property in the plaintiff. The judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. S. P. Moore, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Mr. A. W. Metcaee, for the defendant in error. '"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Abraham Jarrard v. James R. Harper.\n1. Instructions\u2014when technically wrong\u2014how cured. Where, in an action of replevin, the court instructed the jury: \u201c If you believe, from the evidence, that the property in question was plaintiff\u2019s, you must find the defendant guilty,\u201d\u2014 Held, that, technically, the instruction should have embraced proof of a demand, to justify a verdict for the plaintiff; but, as the record shows proof of a demand before suit brought, and the evidence sustains the verdict, this court will not reverse the judgment.\n2. Verdict\u2014where proceedings are ore terms\u2014need not he precisely in form,. In an action of replevin, where the proceedings were ore terms, a verdict that \u201cWe, the jury, find the defendant guilty,\u201d although not precisely in form, is equivalent to a finding of the property in the plaintiff.\nWrit or Error to the County Court of Bond county; the Hon. E. Gaskins, Judge, presiding.\nThis case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.\nMr. S. P. Moore, for the plaintiff in error.\nMr. A. W. Metcaee, for the defendant in error. '"
  },
  "file_name": "0457-01",
  "first_page_order": 457,
  "last_page_order": 458
}