{
  "id": 2591624,
  "name": "Louis H. Salomon v. Rodman B. Ellison et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Salomon v. Ellison",
  "decision_date": "1902-06-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "419",
  "last_page": "420",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "102 Ill. App. 419"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "130 Ill. 457",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        12128585
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "463"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/130/0457-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ill. App. 281",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5790244
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/79/0281-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 2832,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.27879270835649e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6167492776605895
    },
    "sha256": "ca4db3c7a3c3aa8165bdc38052308d2992b25957a3a691df4dacf905d79214d1",
    "simhash": "1:94b25d3b79c4053a",
    "word_count": 506
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:51:35.524386+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Louis H. Salomon v. Rodman B. Ellison et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Ball\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis action was assumpsit upon a written guaranty. The plea was the general issue.\nTrial, and verdict finding the issues for plaintiffs (appellees), and assessing their damages at the sum of $750.\nThe bill of exceptions shows no motion for a new trial, nor any exception to the action of the trial court in overruling such motion, if one was made.\nThe attorneys for appellant say in their brief :\n\u201c We contend that the writing in question is a mere proposal and not a contract of guaranty; that the burden is upon appellees to prove that appellant had notice of the acceptance of this alleged guaranty, and that this proof is a condition precedent to their right to recover.\u201d\nThere is no direct mention in such brief, or in their reply brief, of any errors in the admission or in the exclusion of evidence, nor of the propriety of the giving or of the refusing of any instruction. In other -words, the entire argument of appellant in this court is upon the merits.\nA motion for a new trial and an exception to the order of the court overruling the same is prerequisite to a consideration, upon appeal, of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict. Dearborn v. Rielly, 79 Ill. App. 281-283.\nAccording to the practice in this State, the only mode in which a motion for a new trial and the rulings of the court thereon can be preserved in the record, is by incorporating them ih the bill of exceptions. That the clerk of the trial court has incorporated in the record what purports to be a motion for a new trial does not bring it within the range of judicial observation. Harris v. People, 130 Ill. 457, 463.\nThe judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Ball"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward N. D\u2019Ancona and John Schwender, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Louis H. Salomon v. Rodman B. Ellison et al.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014 Where a Motion for a New Trial in the Court Below is Prerequisite to a Consideration of Questions in Review.\u2014A motion for a new trial and an exception to the oj\u2019der of the court overruling the same is prerequisite to a consideration, upon appeal, of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.\n2. Same\u2014Mode of Preserving in the Record a Motion for a New Trial and the Rulings Thereon.\u2014The only way in which a motion for a new trial and the rulings thereon can be preserved in the record is by incorporating them in a bill of exceptions. The fact that the clerk has incorporated in the record what purports to be a motion for a new trial, does not bring it within the range of judicial observation.\nAssumpsit, upon a written guaranty. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Axel Chytraus, Judge presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1901.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 23, 1902.\nEdward N. D\u2019Ancona and John Schwender, attorneys for appellant.\nMoses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0419-01",
  "first_page_order": 435,
  "last_page_order": 436
}