{
  "id": 820166,
  "name": "Samuel H. Magner et al. v. John S. Knowles",
  "name_abbreviation": "Magner v. Knowles",
  "decision_date": "1873-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "325",
  "last_page": "326",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. 325"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 3353,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5067601019027297e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9232072989583563
    },
    "sha256": "1bfea8490a60e5d84acae78363115e86ba298704384b50afd24cf330a1c7cc8e",
    "simhash": "1:4bbf64cee3630756",
    "word_count": 603
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:48.240811+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel H. Magner et al. v. John S. Knowles."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Lawrence\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThere is no error in this record. The bond was in substantial compliance with the statute, and was a good statutory bond. The receipt given by the constable, and his admissions that he had collected the money, were good evidence against both him and his sureties. It is not necessary that an action on a constable\u2019s bond should be in the name of the people. In fact, it could not be, as the bond is not payable to the people.\nInterest was properly allowed on the money collected by the constable which he refused to pay over.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Lawrence"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Tbogdon, McKindlay & Tannee, for the appellants.",
      "Mr. R. N. Bishop, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel H. Magner et al. v. John S. Knowles.\n1. Constable\u2019s bond\u2014form of The following bond of a constable was held to be in substantial compliance with the statute, and a valid statutory bond: \u201cA B, chosen constable of the town of, etc., and C D and E P, sureties, do hereby, jointly and severally, agree to pay each and every person who may be entitled thereto, all such sums of money as said constable may become liable to pay on account of any execution which shall be delivered to him for collection by virtue of said office. Dated this 8th day of April, 1869.\u201d\n2. Same\u2014constable\u2019s receipt and admissions\u2014evidence against Mm and Ms sureties. In an action on a constable\u2019s bond for a failure to pay over money collected by him on execution, the receipt given by him, and his admissions that he had collected the money, are good evidence against him and his sureties.\n3. Same\u2014party plaintiff to suit on. A suit upon a constable\u2019s bond, given under the township organization law, not payable to the people, or any one by name, is properly brought in the name of the party injured. It can not be maintained in the name of the people in such a case.\n4. Interest. In a suit on a constable\u2019s bond to recover moneys collected by him on execution, which he refused to pay over, it is proper to allow interest on the money so collected.\nAppeal from, the Circuit Court of Edgar county; the Hon. James Steele, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action brought by John S. Knowles, by his next friend, against Samuel H. Magner, A. Y. Trogden and G. W. Hives, before a justice of the peace, upon the bond \u00f3f the first named defendant, the others being sureties.\nThe following is a copy of the bond :\n\u201cSamuel H. Magner, chosen constable of the town of Paris, in the county of Edgar and State of Illinois, and A. Y. Trogden and George W. Hives, sureties, do hereby, jointly and severally, agree to pay each and every person who may be entitled thereto, all such sums of money as said constable may become liable to pay on account of any execution which shall be delivered to him for collection by virtue of said office.\nDated this 8th day of April, 1869.\nSamuel H. Magneb, [seal.]\nA. Y.'Tbogden, [seal.]\nG. W. Rives. [seal.]\u201d\nIt was objected that the bond was not a statutory bond because of the use of the word \u201cexecution\u201d instead of \u201cexecutions,\u201d and because the following words were wholly omitted : \u201cand all such damages as each and every person may sustain by reason of any malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonperformance of duty on the part of said constable.\u201d\nOn appeal to the circuit court, the plaintiff recovered the sum collected by the constable, with interest.\nMessrs. Tbogdon, McKindlay & Tannee, for the appellants.\nMr. R. N. Bishop, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0325-01",
  "first_page_order": 327,
  "last_page_order": 328
}