{
  "id": 2560499,
  "name": "Chester Hitchcock et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Daniel S. Haight, defendant in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hitchcock v. Haight",
  "decision_date": "1845-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "603",
  "last_page": "603",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Gilm. 603"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 Ill. 603"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 66,
    "char_count": 805,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.599,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.402844937318697e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7990971674410361
    },
    "sha256": "daa0f63a04432872ad6d57ed4cddc0d2721982a56dcdd1d36a87f9ed1243a5f0",
    "simhash": "1:b8a805adf2bcd6fb",
    "word_count": 146
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:07.878345+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Chester Hitchcock et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Daniel S. Haight, defendant in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "The Opinion of the Court was delivered by\nTreat, J.\nThe plaintiffs in error ask for a rule on the defendant to join in error. The scire facias was served on the defendant two days after the return day. The service amounts to nothing. The writ had lost its vitality. Its.force was spent. The defendant is not before us.\nThe motion is denied.\nMotion denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Treat, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Marsh, for the plaintiffs in error.",
      "O. Peters, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Chester Hitchcock et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Daniel S. Haight, defendant in error.\nError to Winnebago.\nA scire facias was served two days after the return day: Held, that it amounted to nothing, the writ having lost its vitality.\nIn this case, a motion was made by the counsel for the plaintiffs, for a rule on the defendant to join in error. The motion was denied.\nJ. Marsh, for the plaintiffs in error.\nO. Peters, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0603-01",
  "first_page_order": 619,
  "last_page_order": 619
}