{
  "id": 5264776,
  "name": "Robert P. Breckenridge v. Cyrus H. McCormick et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Breckenridge v. McCormick",
  "decision_date": "1867-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "491",
  "last_page": "492",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "43 Ill. 491"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 153,
    "char_count": 1707,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "sha256": "e350b7fd9a5120da7b937b5e7f5632754450dbe076c6c7c24f1f69c23414330b",
    "simhash": "1:c83714345c2e65f6",
    "word_count": 286
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:56:56.175441+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robert P. Breckenridge v. Cyrus H. McCormick et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThe only question presented by this record is, whether a court of chancery will entertain jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the collection of a less sum than twenty dollars, which a constable was proceeding to collect upon an execution issued by a justice, as the balance due upon a judgment. It is urged in support of the bill, that it does not fall within the provisions of the 8th section of the chapter of injunctions, because the judgment was originally for more than twenty dollars. However that may be, it clearly does fall within the 29th section of the chapter of the Revised Statutes, entitled \u201c Courts,\u201d which gives jurisdiction to the Circuit Court over all matters in common law and chancery, where the debt or demand does not exceed twenty dollars. It is true the complainant here is not, strictly, seeking to enforce a debt or demand, but the case, nevertheless, falls within the purview of the law. The object of the legislature (and it was a very proper one) was to prevent the higher courts from being opened to petty litigation, in regard to sums of trifling magnitude. The Circuit Court properly dismissed the bill.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Fleming, Pillsbury & Plumb, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. L. E. Payson, for the appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert P. Breckenridge v. Cyrus H. McCormick et al.\nInjunction\u2014amount necessary to jurisdiction. Under our statute, courts \u2022will not entertain jurisdiction or grant an injunction to restrain the collection of a judgment, where the amount in controversy is less than twenty dollars.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. Charles R. Starr, Judge, presiding.\nThe facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.\nMessrs. Fleming, Pillsbury & Plumb, for the appellant.\nMr. L. E. Payson, for the appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0491-01",
  "first_page_order": 491,
  "last_page_order": 492
}