{ "id": 2577955, "name": "Louis Marsh v. Myrtle May Jones", "name_abbreviation": "Marsh v. Jones", "decision_date": "1903-03-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "577", "last_page": "579", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "106 Ill. App. 577" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "83 Ill. App. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ill. App. 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 Ill. App. 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 Ill. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3230350 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/187/0187-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 Ill. 314", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5573166 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/189/0314-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 Ill. App. 577", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5221279 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/77/0577-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ill. App. 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 Ill. App. 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5054474 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/43/0363-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 250, "char_count": 3469, "ocr_confidence": 0.555, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.239720748489148e-07, "percentile": 0.6075906355930404 }, "sha256": "967e298d67acb82b040acc3f93cb31caa98130e7945350452bfee6a69c500325", "simhash": "1:9f4743e323137618", "word_count": 587 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:58:38.770440+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Louis Marsh v. Myrtle May Jones." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Opinion\nper Curiam.\nCounsel for appellant insist that the abstract is incomplete, and that for a failure to supply a full and complete abstract, as required by the rule of this court, the judgment should be affirmed.\nThe abstract does not show an assignment of errors, nor what judgment was rendered on the verdict.\nAn assignment of errors is in effect a pleading, and performs the same office as a declaration in a court of original action. Bernard Conlon, for use, etc., v. Patrick Manning, 43 Ill. App. 363; Lang v. Max, 50 Ill. App. 466; Jesse French Piano and Organ Co. v. John Meehan, 77 Ill. App. 577.\nIt should be found in the abstract, which should present whatever a reviewing court is asked to examine. Traeger v. Mutual Building Association, 189 Ill. 314; Staude v. Schumacher, 187 Ill. 187; Douglass v. Miller, 102 Ill. App. 346.\nThe abstract states, \u201c thereupon the court rendered judgment upon the verdict.\u201d To which action and decision of the court, in rendering judgment on the verdict, the defendant, Louis Marsh, by his counsel, then and there excepted.\nThis statement gives no information as to what judgment was rendered. It might as well, as far as information is concerned, have said simply, \u201c judgment rendered.\u201d Such a reference is not a compliance with the rule requiring a full and complete abstract. Flaningham v. Hogue, 59 Ill. App. 318; Amundson Printing Co. v. Empire Paper Co., 83 Ill. App. 441.\nIn this latter case it is said, \u201c Sometimes the courts have turned to the records, where the abstracts have been deficient, but, we believe, never to reverse a judgment\u2014only when it has been thought advisable to give other reasons for affirming it.\u201d\nThe duty of appellants to furnish full and complete abstracts has been so often affirmed by both the Supreme and Appellate Court's that citations are unnecessary.\nFrom an examination of the record, involving the equities of the case, we think it is a proper case for the enforcement of the rule.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Frank B. Hanna and Turner & Holder, attorneys for appellant.", "Winkelman & Baer, attorneys for appellee; Jesse W. Blythe, of counsel." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Louis Marsh v. Myrtle May Jones.\n1. Pleading\u2014Assignment of Error Is.\u2014An assignment of errors is in effect a pleading, and performs the same office as a declaration in a court of original jurisdiction.\n2. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Assignment of Errors Should Be Found in Abstract of the Record.\u2014The assignment of errors should be found in the abstract of the record, which should present whatever a reviewing court is asked to examine.\n3. Same\u2014 Where Abstract is Incomplete.\u2014Where there is a failure to supply a full and complete abstract, as required by the rule of this court, the judgment should be affirmed.\nCertiorari.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County; the Hon. Martin W. Schaerer, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the August term, 1902.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 2, 1903.\nAppellant obtained a judgment against David B. Case-beer before a justice, for 875 and costs'.\nAn execution was issued and levied upon certain articles of personal property which were claimed by appellee. Notice was served on the constable, and a trial of the rights of property followed, in which part of the property was held to belong to appellee and part to Casebeer.\nAppellee took the case by certiorari to the Circuit Court, where she recovered all the property. Plaintiff in execution brings this appeal.\nFrank B. Hanna and Turner & Holder, attorneys for appellant.\nWinkelman & Baer, attorneys for appellee; Jesse W. Blythe, of counsel." }, "file_name": "0577-01", "first_page_order": 601, "last_page_order": 603 }