{
  "id": 2606506,
  "name": "Martin A. Howell, Jr., et al. v. The Albany City Insurance Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howell v. Albany City Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1871-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "50",
  "last_page": "52",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. 50"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 4084,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.015448892878554e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7447355038845894
    },
    "sha256": "9bdbf9ccdec1111e8f73ac07745db6917afd177679f35d030d5045b032b09e1c",
    "simhash": "1:26e47a3769ae626d",
    "word_count": 711
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:06:21.204499+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Martin A. Howell, Jr., et al. v. The Albany City Insurance Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThe same question is presented in all the foregoing cases.\nAppellants commenced their several suits against the insurance companies, and had summons issued in each case, returnable to the November term, 1870.\nThe cases were then in court; and though the record is silent as to what was done at the November- term, the presumption is, from the subsequent proceedings, that they were continued by operation of law until the ensuing term.\nThe next term after the term to which the summons was made returnable, was held on the 7th day of February, 1871. No declaration was filed, either at the November term, or ten days before the February term.\nProcess was duly served upon appellees on the 28th and 29th of October, but the indorsement of service was not made until the 7th of February, at which time the term of the officer who performed the service had expired.\nAt the February term, a motion was made on behalf of appellees, to dismiss the respective suits; and appellants made a cross-motion- to quash the return of service.\nSection 11, of the Practice Act, provides : that if the plaintiff shall not file a declaration \u201cten days before the court at which the summons is made returnable,\u201d the court, on motion, shall continue the cause at the cost of the plaintiff; and it further provides: \u201cif no declaration shall be filed ten days before the second term of the court, the defendant shall be entitled to a judgment, as in case of a non suit.\u201d\nWhen the above motions were made, no declaration had been filed in either of the cases.\nUnder the facts, it was the manifest duty of appellants to file their declarations ten days before the February term. Such is the fair construction and plain requirement of the statute. Their omission to do so, by operation of law, must result in a judgment against them. They knew the term at which the summons was made returnable, and should have guarded against the consequences of their negligence.\nThere was no error, therefore, in the dismissal of the suits.\nThe court also acted rightly in not quashing the return of the officer. The duty was performed\u2014the service was in fact made\u2014while he was sheriff. The return is merely the evidence of service. The service is the act; the return is the .proof of it.\nAfter the expiration of the term, an officer may amend or make a return of service, which had been duly performed while in office, when the service has been so recent as in this case. To this there can be no possible objection. A contrary rule might work serious injury.\nThe judgment of the court in the several cases is affirmed.\nJudgments affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Rice & Bickford, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Dickey & Boyle, for the appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Martin A. Howell, Jr., et al. v. The Albany City Insurance Company.\n1. Practice\u2014declaration before second term\u2014dismissal. Where the plaintiff's summons was made returnable to the November term, 1870, of the Circuit Court, which was, in fact, served within ten days before that term, but no indorsement of service was made until Feb. 7 following, the commencement of the second term after suit brought, and the court dismissed the suit on motion of the defendant because no declaration had been filed ten days before the second term : Held, that the dismissal was proper.\n2. BETURisr of Sheriff\u2014after expiration of office. A sheriff after the expiration of his term of office may amend or make a return of service of process duly performed by him while in office, when the service is recent.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of LaSalle County; the Hon. Edwin S. Leland, Judge, presiding.\nThese several suits were brought by appellants in the Circuit Court of LaSalle County. The summons in each of the cases bore teste Oct. 1, 1870, and were returnable the first day of the next November term, held on the first Monday in November, 1870, or Nov. 7. Service was had on the 28th and 29 th days of October. The remaining facts bearing upon the questions decided appear in the opinion.\nMessrs. Rice & Bickford, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Dickey & Boyle, for the appellees.\nEleven other cases brought by the same appellants against various companies, are embraced in this opinion."
  },
  "file_name": "0050-01",
  "first_page_order": 50,
  "last_page_order": 52
}