{
  "id": 5301833,
  "name": "Henry H. Shufeldt v. John S. Sutphen",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shufeldt v. Sutphen",
  "decision_date": "1869-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "255",
  "last_page": "256",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 Ill. 255"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 2006,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3936768128180446
    },
    "sha256": "49f3d2ec770e917e2553e77f84ef46ef74065763cf6b1e5543fa8e493ed4ee0d",
    "simhash": "1:5c1f62544ffd0dbd",
    "word_count": 356
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:11:47.107839+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry H. Shufeldt v. John S. Sutphen."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lawrence\ndelivered the opinion of the Court :\nWe are obliged to reverse this judgment because the verdict is clearly against the evidence. It was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove a suit against the maker of the note would have been unavailing, but the witness called by him for that purpose showed it would not have been. The note matured May 1, 1867. The witness testified the maker of the note kept house in Chicago in 1866 and 1867, and had handsome furniture, some fine oil paintings, and a fine library which, the witness says, filled two large book cases, worth \u00a7150 to $200 each. He thinks the furniture was worth \u00a72500 to $3000. He says the horse and carriage which the maker of the note also owned, may have been sold before May, 1867, though he can not state positively, \"but it does not appear what has become of the furniture and library further than that after the owner ceased to keep house he stored his furniture. For aught that appears in the record he owned this furniture and library at the time of the trial.\nOn this evidence the jury were not justified in finding that a suit ag\u00e1inst him would have been unavailing, although he may have been heavily in debt. The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lawrence"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Story & King, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Goudy & Chandler, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry H. Shufeldt v. John S. Sutphen.\nAssignor\u2014insolvency of maker. In an action against the assignor of a note for $1000, where it was sought to recover on the ground of the insolvency of the maker, and that a suit against him would have been unavailing, it appeared the maker had some fine oil paintings, a fine library which filled two large book cases, worth $150 to $200 each, and furniture worth $2500 to $3000: Held, the assignor was not liable, although the maker may have been heavily in debt.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Chief Justice, presiding.\nThe facts in this case are fully stated in the opinion.\nMessrs. Story & King, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Goudy & Chandler, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0255-01",
  "first_page_order": 255,
  "last_page_order": 256
}