{
  "id": 5237595,
  "name": "Charles F. Tibbetts v. William Jageman",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tibbetts v. Jageman",
  "decision_date": "1871-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "43",
  "last_page": "44",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ill. 43"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "17 Johns. 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "case_ids": [
        6064777
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/johns/17/0101-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill. 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        436801
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/15/0058-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 119,
    "char_count": 1295,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.542,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.710542168039636e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4076716441769385
    },
    "sha256": "e5d0d75d2ea5550b60cc102790a906f3597f9e3ec4cf733cefe2ad3dad622149",
    "simhash": "1:02f0304becf30afd",
    "word_count": 221
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:15:34.935712+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles F. Tibbetts v. William Jageman."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThis is a controversy in regard to the ownership of certain ivheat claimed by the plaintiff as the purchaser under an execution, and by the defendant as purchaser from the defendant in the execution. The case was submitted to the jury without instructions, and they found for the plaintiff.\nThere is one fact which, of itself, is fatal to the plaintiff\u2019s claim, without considering other questions. The constable\u2019s sale was held at the hotel in the village of Alhambra, two miles distant from the field where the wheat was. Such sales are against the policy of the law, and void. The property sold must be present, ivhere it can be seen by the bystanders, and in the custody of the officer. Herod v. Bartley, 15 Ill. 58; Crepon v. Stout, 17 Johns. 116.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. David Gillespie, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Dale & Burnett, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles F. Tibbetts v. William Jageman.\nSale op chattels\u2014under execution\u2014property must be present. In the sale of personal property under execution, the property sold must be present, where it can be seen by the bystanders, and in the custody of the officer, or the sale will be void.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. Joseph Gillespie, Judge, presiding.\nMr. David Gillespie, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Dale & Burnett, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0043-01",
  "first_page_order": 45,
  "last_page_order": 46
}