{
  "id": 2517304,
  "name": "Bert L. Hough v. Village of Clayton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hough v. Village of Clayton",
  "decision_date": "1906-03-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "294",
  "last_page": "295",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "127 Ill. App. 294"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 106,
    "char_count": 1246,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "sha256": "21bb683445272c37da8df8e27cf6894fd53c093a92708659e72c3e98f3e3ddfc",
    "simhash": "1:dec95f1728de4ffd",
    "word_count": 214
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:02.092160+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Bert L. Hough v. Village of Clayton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Ramsay\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe correctness of the abstract in this case has been challenged by appellee, and our attention called to the fact that the bill of exceptions does not show that any exception was made or saved to the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new' trial; nor to the rendering of the judgment.\nThe record sustains the claim so made by appellee and shows that appellant\u2019s motion for a new trial was overruled, but no exception saved thereto. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict, but no exception saved by appellant.\nThe matters argued are, therefore, not before this court for review.\nThe judgment of the court below is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Ramsay"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph A. Roy, for\" appellant.",
      "Penick & Hubbard, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bert L. Hough v. Village of Clayton.\n1. Exception\u2014what essential to review. Exception to the action of the court in overruling a motion for a new trial and to the entry of judgment is essential to a review of the correctness of the judgment appealed from.\nAction commenced before justice of the peace. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Adams County; the Hon! Albert Akers, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1905,\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 20, 1906.\nJoseph A. Roy, for\" appellant.\nPenick & Hubbard, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0294-01",
  "first_page_order": 312,
  "last_page_order": 313
}