{
  "id": 2606066,
  "name": "William Goggin v William T. O'Donnell",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goggin v. O'Donnell",
  "decision_date": "1871-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "66",
  "last_page": "68",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. 66"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "18 Ill. 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        438645
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/18/0037-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 3285,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.582,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.066816838082189e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5585846896865416
    },
    "sha256": "5f69b0f8fc6942424043a35635cb36581ca2d6e948c306f9bcad7fd25cd7a168",
    "simhash": "1:fed7eca77eff44f1",
    "word_count": 584
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:06:21.204499+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Goggin v William T. O\u2019Donnell."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Sheldon\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was a suit in assumpsit, to recover the value of services rendered.\nThere was an issue of fact on a plea in abatement of the non-joinder of an alleged partner, which was tried by a jury, and found for the plaintiff, and his damages were assessed by the jury.\nThe first point urged as a ground for the reversal of the judgment is, that the verdict is against the evidence.\nThere was proof of the existence- of a partner with the defendant, in the business in which he had employed the plaintiff, but the evidence went strongly to show, that he was but a secret partner, and that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the fact at the time he was employed, and, in that case, the plea would not be supported. 2 Greenlf. Ev., \u00a7 25; Page v. Brant, 18 Ill. 37.\nThe testimony was conflicting in regard to the amount of the plaintiff\u2019s claim, but there was evidence to justify the amount of damages as found by the jury ; and we can not say the verdict is unsupported by the evidence.\n\u25a0 It is next objected, that the jury on finding the issue for the plaintiff, assessed his damages. It is said the jury were only empaneled and sworn to try the issue joined, which was, were defendant and Lyman partners, at the time when, etc. ? that the jury had only to answer this question in the affirmative or negative, and that question answered, their duty was ended, and they should not have assessed the damages.\nBut the duty of the jury was just the reverse, under the law.\nIf the plaintiff take issue upon a plea in abatement, he ought to pay damages, because if it be found against the defendant, the jury must assess the plaintiff\u2019s damages, and final judgment is to be given. 1 Chit. PL, 498; 2 Saund., 211 n. 3.\nIt was not necessary that the j ury should have been sworn specifically to assess the damages. Being sworn to well and truly try the issue joined between the parties, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, included the assessing of the damages.\nWe perceive no error in the instructions given on either side.\nThe judgment of the court below is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Sheldon"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Moore & Caulfield, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. John A. Hunter, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Goggin v William T. O\u2019Donnell.\n1. Plea in abatement\u2014non-joinder of secret partner. In an action of assumpsit to recover the value of services rendered, the defendant pleaded in abatement the non-joinder of his alleged partner : JETeld that proof showing there was such a partner, but that he was a secret partner, and of whom, the plaintiff had no knowledge at the time he was employed by the defendant, would not support the plea.\n2. Same\u2014assessment of damages when issue is .found against the defendant, whether jury should assess them. Where a plaintiff takes issue on a plea in abatement, and the jury find against the defendant, they should assess the plaintiff\u2019s damages so that final judgment may be given. It is not necessary to swear the jury specifically to assess the damages, but swearing them to well and truly try the issue joined between the parties, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, includes the assessing of the damages.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon, John G. Rogers, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Moore & Caulfield, for the appellant.\nMr. John A. Hunter, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0066-01",
  "first_page_order": 66,
  "last_page_order": 68
}