{
  "id": 2718223,
  "name": "William S. Hodge et al. v. The People, for use of Pope county",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hodge v. People",
  "decision_date": "1880-06-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "423",
  "last_page": "425",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "96 Ill. 423"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 3351,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.821860614809288e-07,
      "percentile": 0.964039216185963
    },
    "sha256": "b639a6d2c8bcd19ec1a9e224002f9ae0aead0c21dc6e00ff2f9296c4ecdba77a",
    "simhash": "1:ec5bb4acdcb1647d",
    "word_count": 596
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:51.565300+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William S. Hodge et al. v. The People, for use of Pope county."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scholfield\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of debt on a sheriff\u2019s bond, to recover fees alleged to have been collected and retained by the Sheriff, in excess of the amount allowed him as his salary by the county board.\nThe cause was heard and final judgment rendered, by the Circuit Court, at its February term, 1880.\nThe appeal is taken directly to this court.\nThe case involves no question that entitles it to be brought direct from the Circuit Court to this court. It is manifest, from the nature of the case, that it can not involve a franchise or a freehold; and no question is raised in argument or upon the errors assigned, in Avhich the validity of a statute or the construction of the constitution is involved. The act of 1879 (Laws of 1879, p. 222, \u00a7 88), it is true, provides that an additional class of cases may be brought directly from the Circuit Court to this court, namely: \u201cAll cases relating to the revenue, or in which the State is interested as a party or otherwise.\u201d But this, we understand to intend cases for the collection of revenues\u2014such as suits for taxes\u2014and not every case which may, however remotely, affect the revenue\u2014for this would embrace every suit in which a county, city, school district, etc., may be a party, since every such suit would, in some degree, affect the revenue. So, also, we understand the words, \u201cin which the State is interested as a party or otherwise,\u201d to mean a direct and substantial, as contradistinguished from a purely nominal interest. In that sense, the State has no interest whatever in this suit.\nThe appeal should have been to the Appellate Court of the Fourth District. It will, therefore, be dismissed and appellants will be allowed to withdraw their record, abstracts and briefs.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scholfield"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Morris & Boyer, and Mr. J. A. Bose, for the appellants.",
      "Mr. Wesley Sloan, and Mr. Thomas H. Clark, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William S. Hodge et al. v. The People, for use of Pope county.\nFiled at Mt. Vernon June 14, 1880\nRehearing denied November Term, 1880.\n1. Appeals from a trial court\u2014whether to the Supreme or an Appellate Court\u2014 in suit on official bond. The act of 1879, which provides that appeals may be taken from the trial court directly to the Supreme Court, in \u201c all cases relating to the revenue, or in which the State is interested as a party, or otherwise,\u201d has reference to cases for the collection of revenue\u2014such as suits for taxes\u2014and not every case which may, however remotely, affect the revenue.\n2. And the words of the statute, \u201cin which the State is interested as a party, or otherwise,\u201d mean a direct and substantial, as contradistinguished from a purely nominal interest.\n3. So an action of debt, in the name of The People, for the use of a county, upon a sheriff\u2019s bond, to recover fees alleged to have been collected and retained by the Sheriff; in excess of the amount allowed him by the county board as Ms salary, is not within the statute, the State having, in the proper sense, no interest whatever in such a suit. In such case, there existing none of the special conditions requisite to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, an appeal from the trial court should be taken, in the first instance, to the Appellate Court.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Pope county; the Hon. Daniel M. Browning, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Morris & Boyer, and Mr. J. A. Bose, for the appellants.\nMr. Wesley Sloan, and Mr. Thomas H. Clark, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0423-01",
  "first_page_order": 423,
  "last_page_order": 425
}