{
  "id": 5778398,
  "name": "John E. Brooks et al. v. The People, use, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brooks v. People",
  "decision_date": "1882-09-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "422",
  "last_page": "423",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 Ill. App. 422"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill. 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 Ill. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2662684
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/83/0584-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill. 238",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2591200
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/17/0238-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2066,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.468719062694414e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39856628706924613
    },
    "sha256": "687a8d290e3927db393f1b87771ac6b5c63009590840efbe30ee83779d27c768",
    "simhash": "1:85f412d106bd9980",
    "word_count": 361
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:48.859971+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John E. Brooks et al. v. The People, use, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis case was tried by the court by agreement of the parties without the intervention of a jury.\nMotions were made below for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. Both motions were overruled and judgment was rendered for appellee against appellants.\nHo exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court on these motions or to the rendition of the judgment.\nIt has been repeatedly held, that in such cases the finding of the court below can not be inquired into by the appellate court. Parsons v. Evans, 17 Ill. 238; Sherman v. Skinner, 83 Ill. 584; Duncan v. Chandler, 5 Bradwell, 499; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. City of Paris, 8 Bradwell, 181.\nIt is claimed that the motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained because the declaration was bad. The answer to that is, that a demurrer to the declaration was interposed, and on the court overruling the demurrer, the defendant below filed several pleas to the declaration. This was a waiver of the demurrer. If the defendant deemed his demurrer well taken, he should have abided by it and not tendered an issue on the facts. By abandoning the demurrer and pleading to the whole declaration, he admitted its sufficiency, and can not now assign the decision upon it as error. It was so held in American Express Co. v. Pinckney, 29 Ill. 405.\nThe judgment below must he affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Craig & Craig and Mr. Horace S. Clark, for appellants.",
      "Mr. James F. Hughes, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John E. Brooks et al. v. The People, use, etc.\n1. Exceptions \u2014 Must be taken. \u2014 Objections to the action of the court below in ruling upon motions must be preserved by exceptions properly taken, or they can not be considered on appeal.\n2. Motion in arrest oe judgment. \u2014 The question of the sufficiency of a declaration can not be raised on a motion in arrest of judgment after a demurrer to the declaration has been interposed and overruled, and the defendant has pleaded over.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Coles county; the Hon. J. W. Wilkin, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed September 26, 1882.\nMessrs. Craig & Craig and Mr. Horace S. Clark, for appellants.\nMr. James F. Hughes, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0422-01",
  "first_page_order": 418,
  "last_page_order": 419
}