{
  "id": 5228870,
  "name": "Nathan Hardy et al. v. Benjamin F. Adams et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hardy v. Adams",
  "decision_date": "1868-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "532",
  "last_page": "533",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "48 Ill. 532"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill. 449",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill. 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2586816
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/14/0416-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill. 449",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 2473,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3181957141856366e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7896943026408103
    },
    "sha256": "9cc001a832890e8901ffffe13b35d3285294c5d35c8dae47cf137af6c8e009bc",
    "simhash": "1:2d57533bb1cf94f9",
    "word_count": 443
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:01.886689+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Nathan Hardy et al. v. Benjamin F. Adams et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lawrence\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of debt, on an injunction bond, commenced in the Superior Court of Chicago. The summons was sent to LaSalle county, and there served. Judgment was rendered by default. There was no averment in the declaration that the contract was made in Cook county. We are now asked to reverse the judgment on the ground that the court in Cook county acquired no jurisdiction for want of averments in the declaration showing the case to be one in which it could send its process to a foreign county.\nAs our statute was construed prior to the case of Kenney v. Greer, 13 Ill. 449, this declaration would have been bad, either on demurrer or writ of error. But that case, although turning upon a record which came before the court collaterally, settled principles which govern all cases under this statute, and substantially overruled the former decisions of the court. The authority of that case has been followed in Gillilan v. Gray, 14 Ill. 416; Waterman v. Tuttle, 18 ib. 292, and Hamilton v. Dewey, 22 ib. 490. These were cases substantially like the one at bar, in which the record came before the court directly, and not collaterally. We must now consider the rule firmly established, that the defendant who seeks to raise the question of jurisdiction, where a summons has been sent to a foreign county, must do so by plea in abatement. It can not be done by demurrer, or by a writ of error, after default.\nIt is also said, that two of the breaches on the bond are not well assigned. If this be so it is immaterial, as the other breaches are conceded to be good, and they will sustain the judgment.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lawrence"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. O. C. G-ray and Mr. John C. Champlin, for the plaintiffs in error.",
      "Messrs. Waite & Clarke, for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nathan Hardy et al. v. Benjamin F. Adams et al.\n1. Jurisdiction\u2014sending process to foreign county\u2014question of jurisdiction\u2014 must be raised by plea in abatement. The rule must be considered as firmly established, that a defendant seeking to raise the question of jurisdiction, where the summons has been sent to a foreign county, must do so by plea in abatement.\n2. It cannot be done by demurrer, or by a writ of error, after default.\n3. Former decisions. The cases of Kenney v. Gh'eer, 13 Ill. 449 ; QilMan v. Gray, 14 ib. 416 ; Waterman v. Tuttle, 18 ib. 292, and Hamilton v. Dewey, 22 ib. 490, cited and approved.\nWrit of Error to the Superior Court of Chicago.\nMr. O. C. G-ray and Mr. John C. Champlin, for the plaintiffs in error.\nMessrs. Waite & Clarke, for the defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0532-01",
  "first_page_order": 534,
  "last_page_order": 535
}