{
  "id": 824064,
  "name": "The Chicago and Pacific Railroad Company v. Marion Munger",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chicago & Pacific Railroad v. Munger",
  "decision_date": "1875-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "300",
  "last_page": "302",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 Ill. 300"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 212,
    "char_count": 3176,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.567,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.8896116691927687e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8442069402501845
    },
    "sha256": "0c9d41ba8e9c1efd986e3a450a5fc999fed9b21ff7904d658a571b4f45c1e115",
    "simhash": "1:81d5f63a14aef64d",
    "word_count": 564
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:31:53.325025+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Chicago and Pacific Railroad Company v. Marion Munger."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hr. Justice Scholfield\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nSuit was brought by appellee against appellant on a promissory note executed by it to her on the 4th of January, 1875, payable thirty days after date, for \u00a71057.03, with interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent per annum.\nAppellant pleaded this plea, verified by affidavit:\n\u201cAnd the said defendant, said Chicago and Pacific Eailroad Company, by Chas. D. F. Smith, its attorney, comes and defends the wrong and injury, when, etc., and says that the said plaintiff, before and at the time of the commencement of this suit, was, and still is, an insane person, and as an insane person, then was, and still is, confined in an hospital for the insane, in Batavia, in said State of Illinois, to-wit: at said Cook county. And this, the said defendant is ready to verify; wherefore, it prays judgment of the plaintiff\u2019s said writ, and that the same may be quashed.\u201d\nAppellee demurred, and the court sustained the demurrer and gave judgment for appellee.\nThe only question is, was the plea good, in law?\nThe note was due and unpaid, and somebody was entitled to sue upon it and enforce its collection. If appellee was not, who was ? It is requisite that a plea in abatement shall give the plaintiff a better writ or declaration\u2014the meaning of which, says Stephen, \u201cis, that in pleading a mistake of form, in abatement of the writ or declaration, the plea must, at the same time, correct the mistake, so as to enable the plaintiff to avoid the same objection, in framing his new writ or declaration.\u201d Stephen on Pleading (Heard\u2019s Ed.), 431.\nChitty says : \u201cIn the case of a lunatic, the action upon a contract made with him should be brought in his name, not in the name of his committee.\u201d 1st Plead. (7th Am. Ed.), 20.\nBy our statute, the conservator of a lunatic shall demand, \u201c sue for and receive. in his own name, as conservator, all personal property of and demands due the ward,\u201d etc. R. L. 1874, Chap. 86, sec. 11. But until the appointment and qualification of the conservator, it is clear, suit is properly brought in the name of the lunatic.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hr. Justice Scholfield"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. C. D. F. Smith, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Crane & Tatham, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Chicago and Pacific Railroad Company v. Marion Munger.\n1. Abatement\u2014plea in, must give a better writ or decimation. A plea in abatement must give the plaintiff 'a better writ or declaration, the meaning of which is, that, in pleading a mistake of form in abatement of the writ or declaration, the plea must, at the same time, correct the mistake, so as to enable the plaintiff to avoid the same objection in framing his new writ or declaration.\n3. Same\u2014insanity of plaintiff. A plea in abatement that, before and at the time of the commencement of the suit, the plaintiff was, and still is, an insane person, etc., is bad on demurrer,\n3. Insane person\u2014when he may sue. Until the appointment and qualification of a conservator, for an insane person, it is clear that suit may be brought in such insane person\u2019s name for the recovery of a debt due him.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gaby, Judge, presiding.\nMr. C. D. F. Smith, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Crane & Tatham, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0300-01",
  "first_page_order": 300,
  "last_page_order": 302
}