{
  "id": 2599228,
  "name": "Crawford-Adsit Co. v. Asa Bell et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crawford-Adsit Co. v. Bell",
  "decision_date": "1902-02-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "366",
  "last_page": "367",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "100 Ill. App. 366"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 2102,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.583,
    "sha256": "d93687b94e528628a79d8703835807329a1e7a73abbce0decdf2402ae4a6fcef",
    "simhash": "1:45a51180ddced8b1",
    "word_count": 355
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:58:18.095621+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Crawford-Adsit Co. v. Asa Bell et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nFrom the brief of counsel for appellant we learn that this is an appeal from an order granting an injunction, and that the alleged reasons for the appeal are that \u201cNeither the bill of complaint nor any of the intervening petitions was verified. \u00d1o affidavits were presented in support of the motion for a temporary injunction. The order granting the injunction recites that \u2018the court having heard the testimony of the defendants and other witnesses taken in open court, etc., and being fully advised in the premises, does order,\u2019 etc. But the order does not recite any facts found from such testimony.\u201d\nThis allegation is denied in the brief of appellees. Whether the objections thus made are well taken we do not know, as the abstract does not contain a word of the bill or of its substance, or even an indication of where, if at all. it can be found.\nFrom the abstract it would appear that the appeal is from an order granting a change of venue.\nWe have often said that we will not, in the first instance, look through the record to ascertain whether the alleged errors are well taken. The rules of court require that matter to which counsel desire to call attention must be abstracted.\nFor want of a sufficient abstract the appeal is dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph A. McInerney, attorney for appellant; F. L. Brooks, of counsel.",
      "Bulkley, Gray & More, David S. Geer, Alden, Latham & Young, and Abbott, Buchholz & Abbott, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Crawford-Adsit Co. v. Asa Bell et al.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Matters to Which Counsel Desire to Call Attention, Must be Abstracted.\u2014The Appellate Court will not, in the first instance, look through the record to ascertain whether the errors assigned are well taken. The rules of this court require that matters to which counsel desire to call attention, must be abstracted.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1901.\nDismissed.\nOpinion filed February 21, 1902.\nRehearing denied March 14, 1902.\nJoseph A. McInerney, attorney for appellant; F. L. Brooks, of counsel.\nBulkley, Gray & More, David S. Geer, Alden, Latham & Young, and Abbott, Buchholz & Abbott, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0366-01",
  "first_page_order": 392,
  "last_page_order": 393
}