{
  "id": 5297004,
  "name": "Augustus D. Butterfield, adm'r etc. et al. v. Terris Johnson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Butterfield v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1867-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "68",
  "last_page": "69",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "46 Ill. 68"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 2895,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.630202327013341e-08,
      "percentile": 0.527373989757704
    },
    "sha256": "1c3f98f839cdadd06bd568b2f1e4b9bce1cdcac72f259031bd2628beaf7dc293",
    "simhash": "1:5c661666c83ed517",
    "word_count": 506
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:31:19.364487+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Augustus D. Butterfield, adm\u2019r etc. et al. v. Terris Johnson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lawrence\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was a bill- in chancery brought by Johnson against Bird, Clark, Brown and Butterfield, to correct a note in which the word' \u201cdollars\u201d had been omitted. In the bill the Christian name of Butterfield is spelled sometimes \u201cSylvius,\u201d and sometimes \u201cSylvanus.\u201d In the prayer for process it is spelled Sylvius. The summons was against Sylvanus H. Butterfield, but by leave of the court it was amended, after its return, so as to read Sylvius. The sheriff returned, served by reading and delivering a copy to S. H. Butterfield, and after reciting the service on Clark, adds, \u201cthe rest of the defendants not found in this county.\u201d\nAs the summons ran against Sylvanus H. Butterfield, and was returned, served on S. H. Butterfield, the presumption, if any presumption is to be indulged, must be that the service was on a person named Sylvanus, and not on one named Sylvius. It is urged that the reference in the return, to \u201cthe rest of the defendants,\u201d implies that the S. H. Butter-field named in the return was a defendant. But the Sheriff could only know who were the defendants by his writ, and on inspecting that, he found that Sylvanus H. Butterfield was a defendant.When, then, he speaks in his return of S. H. Butterfield, and \u201cthe rest of the defendants,\u201d he must have. referred to Sylvanus H., who was the only S, H. Butter-field known to him as a defendant. Although where a writ rrms against Sylvanus H. Butterfield and is returned, served on S. H. Butter-field, we may presume it was served on Sylvanus, as the . defendant named in the writ, yet how can we presume it was served on Sylvius, or on any other- person not named in the writ % The summons was afterwards amended,' but we must judge of the meaning of the sheriff\u2019s return by looking at the writ as it stood in his hands. The return was not amended. The decree must be reversed and the cause remanded.\nDecree reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lawrence"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Crawford & Beck, for the plaintiffs in error.",
      "Mr. George C. Campbell, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Augustus D. Butterfield, adm\u2019r etc. et al. v. Terris Johnson.\n1. Writs\u2014sheriff\u2019s return. In a bill in chancery filed against several defendants, one of whom was named Butterfield, the Christian name of Butterfield was spelled therein as \u201cSylvius,,\u2019 and \u201cSylvanus,\u201d and the summons was against \u201cSylvanus H. Butterfield,\u201d and was returned by the sheriff as served on \u201cS. H. ButterfieldHeld, that it must be presumed that the writ was served on \u201cSylvanus,\u201d as the defendant named therein, and not on \u201cSylvius.\u201d A sheriff can only know who the defendants are, save by his writ, and the meaning of his return thereon, must be judged by an inspection of the writ as it stood in his hands.\nWrit of Error to the Circuit court of LaSalle county ; the Hon. M. E. Hollister, Judge, presiding.\nThe facts in this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.\nMessrs. Crawford & Beck, for the plaintiffs in error.\nMr. George C. Campbell, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0068-01",
  "first_page_order": 68,
  "last_page_order": 69
}