{
  "id": 4879253,
  "name": "Hulda Purvis v. Isabelle Standifer",
  "name_abbreviation": "Purvis v. Standifer",
  "decision_date": "1884-02-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "435",
  "last_page": "436",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 Ill. App. 435"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 2102,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5211085665612165
    },
    "sha256": "04dbfea95d9338639c7f095d4479b8028c6eff653ce04cffac85760d5ca0b0e8",
    "simhash": "1:2eabfccbdb7a57f2",
    "word_count": 371
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:53.324345+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hulda Purvis v. Isabelle Standifer."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\n\"When these two cases were reached upon the call of the docket on the fourth day of December, it appearing that errors had been assigned upon the records and briefs filed upon both sides, they were taken under advisement. On the next day, upon application of appellant\u2019s attorney in each case; leave was given to file additional records from the court below. In the second of the above entitled cases such additional record was filed, but it appearing that the new matter certified by the clerk does not constitute a part of the record, we have stricken the same from the files.\nA motion is now made to continue the causes, to enable appellants to make application to the court below to amend the bill of exceptions in each case, by adding the seal of the judge and by incorporating matter which has been inadvertently omitted therefrom.\nThis application, if it, had been made in time, might have met with our favorable consideration ; but the defects in the record of the court below have been apparent ever since it was first certified to by the clerk, and if appellant\u2019s counsel had desired to have it amended he should have made his motion before the cause had been submitted. We are of opinion the motions made at this late day came entirely too late, and they will be overruled.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. W. H. Shinn, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. Eden & Clark and Mr. S. M. Smyser, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hulda Purvis v. Isabelle Standifer.\nPbactice \u2014 Motion to continue cause. \u2014 Where a motion was made to continue a cause to make application to the coui-t below to amend the bill of exceptions by adding the seal of the judge, and by incorporating matter which had been inadvertently omitted. Held, that the motion comes too late, as the defects in the record of the court below were apparent ever since it was certified ,o hy the clerk, and it was the duty of appellant\u2019s counsel, if he had desired to have the record amended, to have made his motion before the cause had been submitted.\nAppeal from the County Court of Moultrie county; the Hon. J. Meeker, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed February 5, 1884.\nMr. W. H. Shinn, for appellant.\nMessrs. Eden & Clark and Mr. S. M. Smyser, for appellee.\nTwo cases."
  },
  "file_name": "0435-01",
  "first_page_order": 429,
  "last_page_order": 430
}