{
  "id": 2685062,
  "name": "John J. Hanks, Appellee, v. Catherine E. Miller et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hanks v. Miller",
  "decision_date": "1908-04-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "486",
  "last_page": "487",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "142 Ill. App. 486"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "156 Ill. 614",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3021876
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/156/0614-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 139,
    "char_count": 1608,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0834730132915085
    },
    "sha256": "0cd039439ea46713f8ac595c2575e40797a8e06cf6a7ea89bcc5ca67b6274863",
    "simhash": "1:03bb6c625d5e00e5",
    "word_count": 270
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:23:39.528476+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John J. Hanks, Appellee, v. Catherine E. Miller et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe Circuit Court entered judgment overruling a motion by appellants to quash and vacate a sale by the sheriff of certain personal property under an execution upon a judgment against appellants and in favor of appellee, and to re-tax the costs allowed said sheriff for expenses in caring for the property prior to the sale. This appeal is prosecuted from such order.\nWhile the transcript of the record prepared by the clerk recites that the motion in question was made, the ruling and judgment of the court thereon and the exceptions of appellants to such rulings are not embodied in a bill of exceptions signed and sealed by the judge as is required by law. People v. Drain. Com., 156 Ill. 614.\nWe are therefore precluded from considering the questions raised by the assignments of error, and must presume that the judgment was properly entered.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jack & Deck, for appellants.",
      "Redmon & Hogan and Whitley & Fitzgerald, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John J. Hanks, Appellee, v. Catherine E. Miller et al., Appellants.\nAppeals and errors\u2014what essential to preserve questions of law for review. In order to preserve for review the question as to the propriety of the court\u2019s action in overruling a motion to vacate a sheriff\u2019s sale, etc., it is essential that the motion, the ruling thereon and an exception, be preserved by bill of exceptions; it is not sufficient that the clerk recite the same in his transcript.\nAssumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. William C. Johns, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the November term, 1907.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 21, 1908.\nJack & Deck, for appellants.\nRedmon & Hogan and Whitley & Fitzgerald, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0486-01",
  "first_page_order": 504,
  "last_page_order": 505
}