{
  "id": 874219,
  "name": "Wilmington Star Mining Company v. Nicholas Gustat, by his next friend",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilmington Star Mining Co. v. Gustat",
  "decision_date": "1905-03-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 4,451",
  "first_page": "408",
  "last_page": "409",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 Ill. App. 408"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "110 Ill. App. 603",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2556216
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/110/0603-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill. 251",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5410974
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/127/0251-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 Ill. 289",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5593722
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/200/0289-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 Ill. App. 29",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2542754
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/114/0029-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 2756,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.030724185077971727
    },
    "sha256": "689501f1440628b01c1cdeed73f27e5b310d494525bd1963e13c251889d79f22",
    "simhash": "1:db5b28392cce0eba",
    "word_count": 479
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:00:51.732844+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Wilmington Star Mining Company v. Nicholas Gustat, by his next friend."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Farmer\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nNicholas Gustat was injured while working in appellant\u2019s mine and brought suit by his next friend to recover damages therefor. Upon a trial by jury he was awarded a verdict for $1,000. He filed a remittitur of $5, whereupon \u25a0 the court rendered judgment in his favor for $995, and from this judgment defendant below has prosecuted this appeal.\nAppellant in its brief and argument insists the court erred in admitting and refusing to admit testimony, in refusing certain instructions, and also that the verdict is contrary to and not supported by the evidence. Hone of these questions are presented' by the record in this case for our consideration. The bill of exceptions does not contain the instructions given and refused nor any exception to the ruling of the court with respect thereto, nor does it contain a motion for a new trial or the ruling of the court thereon, or any exception thereto. In this state of the record no question is saved for our consideration. Hawley v. Huth, 114 Ill. App. 29, and cases there cited.\nIn the transcript of the proceedings prepared by the clerk and preceding the bill of exceptions, appear certain instructions marked \u201c Given\u201d and others marked \u201cRefused,\u201d also what purports to be a motion for a new trial, and the clerk has certified that appellant excepted to the ruling of the court in denying the motion for a new trial, and in rendering judgment on the verdict. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and this court, that it is not within the power of the clerk to certify what exceptions were taken on the trial. This can only be done by the presiding judge by a bill of exceptions. Some of the cases where this was held are People v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 200 Ill. 289; Gould v. Howe, 127 Ill. 251; Burch v. Goodenough, 110 Ill. App. 603.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Farmer"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D. R. Anderson and A. R. Jordan, for appellant.",
      "E. L. Clover and Donahoe, McNaughton & McKeown, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Wilmington Star Mining Company v. Nicholas Gustat, by his next friend.\nGen. No. 4,451.\n1. Errors\u2014when not presented for review. Where the bill of exceptions does not contain the instructions given and refused, nor any exceptions to the ruling of the court with respect thereto, nor a motion for a new trial, nor the ruling of the court thereon, nor any exception thereto, nothing is saved for consideration on appeal; and these omissions cannot be supplied by the recitals of the clerk contained in the transcript of the record.\nAction on the case for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Grundy County; the Hon. Samuel C. Stough, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1904.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 8, 1905.\nD. R. Anderson and A. R. Jordan, for appellant.\nE. L. Clover and Donahoe, McNaughton & McKeown, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0408-01",
  "first_page_order": 428,
  "last_page_order": 429
}