{
  "id": 2488594,
  "name": "William S. McKnight v. Thomas B. Walker",
  "name_abbreviation": "McKnight v. Walker",
  "decision_date": "1905-03-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "138",
  "last_page": "139",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "119 Ill. App. 138"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 1696,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "sha256": "a2afefee53785a55601c8df5745c62da08ab92a606a621a51eb01438f2f96b5a",
    "simhash": "1:cd8a4a213a400772",
    "word_count": 293
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:07:30.746032+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William S. McKnight v. Thomas B. Walker."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Creighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was a suit in replevin commenced by appellant against appellee, before a justice of the peace of Clay county. After trial and judgment in the justice court the case was appealed to the County Court, and from the judgment of that court an appeal. is prosecuted to this court.\nThe controversy involves the ownership of a few fence posts, worth less than $20. The case has been tried by jury five times.\nAll the material questions involved in this appeal are dependent upon the state of the evidence, and the record does not purport to contain all the evidence.\nWhere the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence, the court must presume that there was sufficient proper evidence .to warrant the verdict and sustain the judgment, and in such case, unless some error not dependent upon the evidence is well assigned, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.\nThere are other defects in both the record and the abstract but the one above noted'is all controlling, in a case of this character, and the others need not be discussed.\nThe judgment of the County Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Creighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rose and McCollum, for appellant.",
      "H. W. Shriner and B. D. Monroe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William S. McKnight v. Thomas B. Walker.\n1. Verdict\u2014when presumed supported by the evidence. Where the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all of the evidence, it will be presumed, that the verdict is supported by the evidence heard.\nAction of replevin. Appeal from the County Court of Clay County; the Hon. John R. Bonnet, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the August term, 1904.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 17, 1905.\nRose and McCollum, for appellant.\nH. W. Shriner and B. D. Monroe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0138-01",
  "first_page_order": 156,
  "last_page_order": 157
}