{
  "id": 5300226,
  "name": "Peter Koeler v. Samuel E. Eaton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Koeler v. Eaton",
  "decision_date": "1869-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "319",
  "last_page": "320",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 Ill. 319"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 128,
    "char_count": 1370,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.563,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36617752618009775
    },
    "sha256": "6b8da6d4085269aae37f56397406e7aaa73baafba2907b5b66611584da62298b",
    "simhash": "1:a22b924dd2bfe418",
    "word_count": 235
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:11:47.107839+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Peter Koeler v. Samuel E. Eaton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lawrence\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was a bill in chancery, brought by Eaton against Koeler, to compel the conveyance of a tract of land. The hill alleges that the complainant had entered the land at the government land office, and that the defendant afterwards bribed a clerk in the office to erase complainant\u2019s entry, and substitute an entry by defendant. The \u25a0 defendant answered, denying the allegations of the bill; a replication was filed, and the deposition taken, of the register\u2019s clerk charged to have received the bribe. Nothing of the kind, however, was proven by him and no other testimony was taken. The case seems to have stood on the docket for some years without action, but a decree was finally pronounced in favor of the complainant, directing the defendant to convey. As there was no evidence, whatever, upon which to base such a decree,, we presume the case was heard ex parte, and the decree rendered under misapprehension of the facts. It must be reversed and the cause remanded.\nDecree reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lawrence"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Bangs & Shaw and Mr. L. Newell, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Mr. John Clark, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Peter Koeler v. Samuel E. Eaton.\nThe decree in this case is reversed for want of any evidence to support it.\nWrit of Error to the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. Samuel L. Richmond, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Bangs & Shaw and Mr. L. Newell, for the plaintiff in error.\nMr. John Clark, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0319-01",
  "first_page_order": 319,
  "last_page_order": 320
}