{
  "id": 2611907,
  "name": "Union County v. William R. Patton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Union County v. Patton",
  "decision_date": "1872-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "458",
  "last_page": "460",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 Ill. 458"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 3241,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.594,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.907851262220699e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7312851058111882
    },
    "sha256": "221abdd25b46dfdb93b6b43c3c7abb3fea5d1841b9fa310410041637c122d988",
    "simhash": "1:d5a5d76c4817fec6",
    "word_count": 549
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:30:19.405961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Union County v. William R. Patton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Thornton\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe law of 1865, by authority of which the judgment was rendered in this case, was a special law to regulate the compensation of sheriffs in certain counties. Sess. Laws 1865, p. 69.\nThe latter clause of section 11 of article 10 of the constitution of 1870 is an express repeal of it. The language is too plain to admit of construction. It is: \u201cAll fees established by special laws shall cease at the adoption of this constitution.\u201d\nFor services rendered after the adoption of the constitution, officers were remitted to the general laws.\nIt is contended that section 11 has application only to officers elected after the constitution went into effect. The first part of the section must be so applied; and in the beginning of the latter clause, the language is: \u201cThe compensation herein provided for shall apply only to officers hereafter elected.\u201d This has reference to the compensation mentioned in section 10 of the same article. But in the subsequent words, where the cessation of special laws is declared, the language is too clear to require argument.\nThe record discloses that appellee was the jailer. He might have been the keeper of the jail, and not the sheriff.\nThis court has decided that the mere keeper of the jail can not recover the fees of the sheriff for keeping, dieting and discharging prisoners. Seibert v. The Board of Supervisors of Logan County, ante 155.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Thornton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Ware & Townes, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Mayham & Layman, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Union County v. William R. Patton.\n1. Fees oe shekiees provided by special laws\u2014how affected by the constitution of 1870. The law of I860, regulating the compensation of sheriffs in certain counties, is expressly repealed by the latter clause of section 11 of article 10 of the constitution of 1870, which provides that \u201c ail fees established by special laws shall cease on the adoption of this constitution.\u201d For services rendered after the adoption of the constitution, officers were remitted to the general laws.\n2. Upon it being contended that section 11 had application only to officers elected after the constitution went into effect, it was held, although the first part of the section must be so applied, yet the language in the beginning of the latter clause\u2014\u201c the compensation herein provided for shall apply only to officers hereafter elected\u201d\u2014has reference to the compensation mentioned in section 10 of the same article.\n3. Keeper of jail\u2014whether may recover the fees of (he sheriff. The mere keeper of a jail can not recover of the county the fees of the sheriff, for keeping, dieting and discharging prisoners.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Union county; the Hon. M. C. Crawford, Judge, presiding.\nThis was a proceeding originally commenced by William B. Patton, in the county court of Union county, to recover of the county certain fees which he claimed as keeper of the jail of the county. Upon a trial in the circuit court, to which an appeal was prosecuted from the judgment of the county court, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Patton of $811.60, upon which the court entered judgment. The county appeals to this court.\nMessrs. Ware & Townes, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Mayham & Layman, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0458-01",
  "first_page_order": 460,
  "last_page_order": 462
}