{ "id": 6102331, "name": "Charles Brown v. Benjamin H. Bodwell, for the use of John J. Parker", "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Bodwell ex rel. Parker", "decision_date": "1843-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "313", "last_page": "315", "citations": [ { "type": "nominative", "cite": "4 Scam. 302" }, { "type": "official", "cite": "5 Ill. 302" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "13 Ill. 432", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2583896 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/13/0432-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Ill. 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2576988 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/11/0474-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Gilm. 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gilm.", "case_ids": [ 2563069 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/9/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Scam. 260", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 Scam. 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2483981 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/2/0554-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Scam. 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2471344 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/4/0133-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Scam. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2478305 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "273, 259" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/3/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Scam. 56", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2484099 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/2/0056-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Scam. 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2474462 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/3/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Scam. 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2484466, 2479598 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/2/0548-02", "/ill/2/0548-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Scam. 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2481122 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/2/0547-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Scam. 403", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2483029 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/2/0403-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Scam. 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2471344 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/4/0133-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Scam. 56", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2484099 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/2/0056-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 271, "char_count": 4312, "ocr_confidence": 0.53, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.169921980782502e-08, "percentile": 0.4750695889992042 }, "sha256": "ab9b948c2823d702ecc9adfaff858327b8fe3b7afb12e425850eda9c773b03dc", "simhash": "1:b5f68f883a0a9481", "word_count": 751 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:32:49.187861+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Charles Brown v. Benjamin H. Bodwell, for the use of John J. Parker." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tbeat, Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the 'court: Bod-well, for the use of Parker, instituted an action against Brown in the Winnebago circuit court. The summons was directed to La Salle county, and was there served on Brown. The declaration was in assumpsit. The default of Brown was [* 303] entered, and a writ of inquiry awarded to assess the plaintiff\u2019s damages. Afterwards, and before the execution of the writ of inquiry, Brown appeared and moved the court to dismiss the suit, for want of jurisdiction. The motion was refused. The plaintiff\u2019s damages were assessed to 1301.20, for which amount the court gave judgment. To reverse that judgment, a writ of error is prosecuted. The decision of the circuit court, in refusing to dismiss the suit, i's assigned for error.\nThe error is well' assigned. As a general rule, original process cannot be directed to a different county from that in which the suit is commenced. The statute has exempted a particular class of cases from the operation of this rule. R. L. 145. This court, in the case of Key v. Collins, 1 Scam. 403, has decided in what cases the statute authorizes the process to be issued to a foreign county. The same case decides, that where the process issues to a foreign county, the declaration must contain an averment, showing the case to be within the statute. To the same effect are the cases of Clark v. Harkness, 1 Scam. 56; Gillet v. Stone, 1 Scam. 547; Evans v. Crosier, 1 Scam. 548; Shephard v. Ogden, 2 Scam. 257; and Wakefield v. Goudy, 3 Scam. 133. Where the process goes to a foreign county, the presumption is, that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. To rebut this presumption, the averment becomes necessary. In the present case, the declaration contains no averment showing the jurisdiction of the court. It ought to have alleged either, that the cause of action accrued in the county of Winnebago, and that the plaintiff, at the commencement of the suit, resided in that county ; or that the contract on which the action is brought, was by its terms specifically made payable in that county. The plaintiff failing to show the jurisdiction of the court by his declaration, the circuit court ought to have sustained the motion of the defendant, and dismissed the suit.\nThe judgment of the circuit court is reversed with costs.\nJudgment reversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tbeat, Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "Francis Burnap, for the plaintiff in error,", "JasoN Maesh, for the defendant in error," ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Charles Brown v. Benjamin H. Bodwell, for the use of John J. Parker.\nError to Winnebago.\n1. Process \u2014 to foreign county. As a general rule, original process cannot be directed to a different county from that in which the suit is commenced; but the statute has exempted a particular class of cases from the operation of this rule.\n2. Same \u2014 necessary averment. Where original process is issued to a foreign county the declaration must contain an averment either that the cause of action accrued in the county where the suit is instituted, and that the plaintiff resided there at the time of the commencement of the suit, or that the contract on which the action is brought was specifically made payable in that county. Without such averment the court has not jurisdiction of the person of the defendant,\nThis suit was determined in the court below at the August term, 1843, before the Hon. Thomas C. BkowNE.\nFrancis Burnap, for the plaintiff in error,\ncited R. L. 67, \u00a7 45: 1 Peters\u2019 Cond. R.'207 ; 1 Scam. 56, 547-8 ; 2 Scam. 1, 273, 259; 3 Scam. 133.\nJasoN Maesh, for the defendant in error,\ncited Breese 96 ; 1 Scam. 554 ; 2 Scam. 260, 278 ; R. L. 67, \u00a7 11.\nCases Citing Text. Where process is sent to foreign county, facts authorizing exercise of such jurisdiction must be stated in declaration. Semple v. Anderson, 4 Gilm. 546; Haddock v. Waterman, 11 Ill. 474.\nPrior decisions overruled. Statute, which prohibits suing defendant out of county in which he resides or may be found, gives him more privilege, which he waives by not insisting on it m apt time. Where process is sent to foreign county, declaration need not show facts authorizing it to be sent to such county, in order to give court jurisdiction. Kenney v. Greer, 13 Ill. 432.\nFor statute in force in 1S85 governing sending original process to foreign county, see R. S. 1874, Practice, ch. 110, \u00a7\u00a7 2, 3, as amended in 1877 ; S. and C.\u2019s Stats. p. 1773 ; Cothran\u2019s Stats. 1885, p. 1090." }, "file_name": "0313-01", "first_page_order": 325, "last_page_order": 327 }