{
  "id": 2604177,
  "name": "Josiah Martin et al. v. Benjamin Brewster et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. Brewster",
  "decision_date": "1868-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "306",
  "last_page": "308",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "49 Ill. 306"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. 288",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5223228
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/44/0288-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3656,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.558,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0997720922370316e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5679676691575455
    },
    "sha256": "1b17e099dee0915b33274b0018c26b9d44c345bd2306f1a2a10c0046b2ababa8",
    "simhash": "1:027cdd7b0ceb91dc",
    "word_count": 605
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:09:54.123593+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Josiah Martin et al. v. Benjamin Brewster et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe judgment in this case, on the authority of Mahony v. Davis, 44 Ill. 288, must be reversed.\nThe plaintiff made no proof under the issue on the plea in abatement that the cause of action accrued in Cook county, or that it was specifically made pay able in that county.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. George F. Harding, for the appellants.",
      "Mr. Wm. C. Grant, for the appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Josiah Martin et al. v. Benjamin Brewster et al.\nSending process to a poreign county. Where the defendant in an action in which the summons was sent to a foreign county for service, pleads in abatement, that the cause of action did not accrue, and was not specifically made payable, in the county in which the suit was instituted, and an issue is formed upon such plea, if the plaintiff fails to prove that the cause of action did accrue, or was specifically made payable, in the county from whence the writ issued, it is error to render a judgment in his favor.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county ; the Hon. Eeastus S. Williams, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, brought by Brewster, Templeton & Co., in the circuit court of Cook county, against Martin & Hogue, upon an account of which this is a copy:\n\u201c Messrs. Martin & Hogue,\nIn account with Brewster, Templeton & Co.\n1861.\nSept. 14. Dr. To cash paid for oats to fill contract with Dean, Low & Co.,\n1846.08 bush, at 5SJc.....................................$1,080.11\n1145.30 \u201c \u201c 66c...................................... 960.26\n3692.06. $2,040.43\n666.30 bush, from M. & H., sale 155 641.28 \u25a0 \u201c \u201c M. & H., \u201c 166 '\n6000.00 hush, amount of sale.\nDr. To commissions for purchase and sale of 3692.06 at lc, . 36.92\n\u201c government tax on sale of 1416.88............... 1.48\n$2,018.83\nOr.\nSept. 14. By sale of 3692.06 bush, oats at 40c... . 1,416.88\nBalance due B., T. & Co. ,$ 601.91\nE. & O. E. Chicago, Sept. 14th, 1861.\u201d\nThe summons sued out in the cause was sent to the sheriff of Warren county for service upon the defendants in that county, and it was returned served.\nThe defendants filed a plea in abatement, alleging, first', that the defendants, at the commencement of the suit, were, ever have been since, and still are residents of Warren county, and neither have been found nor served with process in Cook county; second, that said debts, contracts or causes of action, if accrued, did not accrue in said Cook county, nor were they made payable in said Cook county.\nThe plaintiffs replied, first, that the said contracts, debts and causes of action, each in the said plaintiff\u2019s declaration mentioned, were specifically made payable in the said county of Cook; second, that the said debts, contracts and causes of action, mentioned in said plaintiff\u2019s declaration, did actually accrue in said county of Cook.\nThe plaintiffs called on Hill, who testified as follows:\n\u201c I am book-keeper for plaintiffs. The moneys described in account attached to declaration as advanced by plaintiffs were so advanced in Chicago at the request of defendants. The defendants agreed to pay interest at ten per cent.; this was the course of dealing between the parties\u2014to allow interest; I have computed the interest, and the debt, principal and interest amounted to $637.05.\u201d\nThis was all the testimony in the case. A verdict was returned for the plaintiffs, and their damages were assessed at $637.07, and judgment accordingly.\nThe defendants thereupon took this appeal. The question presented on the assignment of errors is, whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to send its process to a foreign county.\nMr. George F. Harding, for the appellants.\nMr. Wm. C. Grant, for the appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0306-01",
  "first_page_order": 306,
  "last_page_order": 308
}