{
  "id": 6104220,
  "name": "Abner Carson et al. v. John A. Merle et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carson v. Merle",
  "decision_date": "1843-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "376",
  "last_page": "376",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "4 Scam. 363"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 Ill. 363"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Scam. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2472214
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/4/0168-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Scam. 166",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2470484
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/4/0166-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 1721,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17380839577905893
    },
    "sha256": "6b8534b55047b1d108179ce671f21922e8488f39e3d4bfa9dad4d12e9de8d934",
    "simhash": "1:45a1e49a52dd8adc",
    "word_count": 297
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:32:49.187861+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Abner Carson et al. v. John A. Merle et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Treat, Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the court: This was an action of trespass. A trial was had, and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs. On the trial, the plaintiffs, to prove title to the premises on which it was alleged the trespass was committed, offered in evidence a receipt of the receiver of the land office, showing payment by them for the lands in question. To the introduction of this evidence, the defendants objected, but their objection was overruled, and the receipt admitted. That decision of the court is now assigned for error, by the defendants.\nThe receipt of the receiver was not competent evidence to show title to the land. This question was expressly decided by this court, in the case of Roper v. Clabaugh, 3 Scam. 166.\nThe judgment of the circuit court is reversed with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Treat, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thompson Campbell, for the plaintiffs in error.",
      "E. D. Baker and A. T. Bledsoe, for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Abner Carson et al. v. John A. Merle et al.\nError to Carroll\\\ni. Evidence \u2014 land office receiver's certificate. The certificate of the receiver cf a land office, of the receipt of the purchase money for a tract of land, is not evidence of title thereto.\nThis cause was originally commenced in'the Jo Daviess circuit court, and subsequently removed to Carroll county, by change of venue, where it was heard at the October term, 1841, before the Hon. Thomas C. Browne and a jury. Verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiffs for $1260. The defendants brought the cause to this court by writ of error.\nThompson Campbell, for the plaintiffs in error.\nE. D. Baker and A. T. Bledsoe, for the defendants in error.\nCases Citing Text. For what appear to be earlier proceedings in this case in the supreme court, see Carson v. Merle, 3 Scam. 168."
  },
  "file_name": "0376-01",
  "first_page_order": 388,
  "last_page_order": 388
}