{
  "id": 852645,
  "name": "E. H. Gale v. William Rector",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gale v. Rector",
  "decision_date": "1882-01-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "262",
  "last_page": "263",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 Ill. App. 262"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. 48",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5222932
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/44/0048-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Scam. 5",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 127,
    "char_count": 1460,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.030104843950361584
    },
    "sha256": "942eac1994005aed758df74db2c471276b8e4e1faffe62553219e4057ce28f63",
    "simhash": "1:925f9d072536b313",
    "word_count": 266
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:14:56.607874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. H. Gale v. William Rector."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe questions presented and argued in this ease by appellant, can not be considered by the court in the absence of a bill of exceptions.\nThe paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions, copied by the clerk into the transcript, is neither signed nor sealed by the judge who tried the cause as required by the statute.\nCopying such a paper into the transcript does not make it a part of the record, and the objection that it is not signed or sealed may be taken to it either by motion to strike it from the hies or on the final hearing. James v. Sprague, 2 Scam. 5; Miller v. Jenkins, 44 Ill. 48.\nIn the absence of such a bill of exceptions, as\u201eis required by the statute, we can not inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence to maintain the verdict, or the propriety of the instructions given or refused. People v. Coultas, 9 Bradwell, 39; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Gilchrist, 9 Bradwell, 135.\nThe judgment of the court below is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Stevenson & Ewing, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. Rowell & Hamilton, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. H. Gale v. William Rector.\nPractice\u2014Absence of bill of exceptions.\u2014A paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions, but neither signed nor sealed by the judge who tried the cause, is not a proper bill of exceptions, and does not become a part of the record by copying it into the transcript.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. Owen T. Reeves, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed January 17, 1882.\nMessrs. Stevenson & Ewing, for appellant.\nMessrs. Rowell & Hamilton, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0262-01",
  "first_page_order": 258,
  "last_page_order": 259
}