{
  "id": 2633916,
  "name": "Samuel R. Hurford, Defendant in Error, v. Ida M. Rosie, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hurford v. Rosie",
  "decision_date": "1909-11-22",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 14,718",
  "first_page": "605",
  "last_page": "612",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "151 Ill. App. 605"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 404,
    "char_count": 12742,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4713763234844966
    },
    "sha256": "1a670767b0ea1cf76814497ac93ed4abc8923af8d5b567fc8a4497dba8285da8",
    "simhash": "1:0b23d02661946254",
    "word_count": 2180
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:46:56.526793+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel R. Hurford, Defendant in Error, v. Ida M. Rosie, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn an action of forcible detainer by defendant in error against plaintiff in error a verdict for the plaintiff was directed and returned by the jury. May 9, 1908, judgment was entered on the verdict. June 8 an order was entered extending the time for filing \u201cthe bill of exceptions\u201d to June 13. June 13 an instrument entitled \u201cStatement of Facts\u201d was presented to the trial judge, and the fact of such presentation on said date noted thereon by him over his signature. June 15, 1908, the same was signed by the trial judge, and on the same day was filed. A motion by defendant in error to strike said instrument from the transcript of the record filed in this court was reserved to the hearing.\n\u2022 November 12, 1908', there was filed in this court a certified transcript of an \u201corder together with a certain original additional report\u201d in said cause. The order set forth in said transcript was entered November 5,1908, and denies each of plaintiff\u2019s motions then made, one of which was to amend the said statement signed and filed June 15. Said transcript also contains a certificate signed by the trial judge November 5,1908, of the proceedings on the hearing of said motion, and the evidence introduced in support thereof, which states that the court held that he \u201chad no jurisdiction or power at this time to set aside or vary, alter or change said orders or to strike from record, or correct errors in said statement of facts filed June 15, 1908, on the ground that while the court had a distinct recollection of said trial and of said contract, and the evidence offered in the trial, and while said statement evidently was erroneous, he had no memoranda by which he could correct said statement, and thereupon denied each of said motions.\u201d\nOn the same day the trial judge signed another instrument entitled, \u201cAdditional report requested by the plaintiff,\u201d certified to contain, \u201call the testimony offered or received on the trial,\u201d etc., which instrument was filed on said day and is the instrument contained in the additional transcript filed in this court November 12. Plaintiff in error moved in this court to strike from the record said additional report, and December 14 his motion was denied. No order was entered at any time extending the time within which the plaintiff might file an additional report.\nClause 6 of section ,23 of the Municipal Court Act contains the following provision:\n\u201cUpon application made at any time within thirty (30) days after the entry of any final order or judgment, or within such further time as may, upon application therefor within said thirty days, lie allowed by the court, it shall be the duty of the judge by whom such final order or judgment was entered, to sign and place on file in the case in which the same was entered, if so requested by either of the parties to the suit, either a correct statement, to be prepared by the party requesting the signing of the same, of the facts appearing upon the trial thereof, and of all questions of law involved in such case, and the decisions of the court upon such questions of law, or, if such party shall so elect, a correct stenographic report of the proceedings at the trial, and a correct statement of such other proceedings in the case as such party may desire to have reviewed by the Supreme Court or the Appellate Court, omitting therefrom, with the approval of the judge, so much of the arguments of counsel and of the other proceedings, other than the evidence and rulings of the court with respect thereto, and the charge of the court, as the judge may deem unnecessary for the presentation to the Supreme Court or the Appellate Court of the merits of the case: Provided, however, that the opposite party may, if he so elect, cause the parts so omitted to be signed by the judge as an additional report, and cause the same to be certified by the clerk and filed in the Supreme Court or Appellate Court, as the case may be, as a part of the record to be considered upon such writ of error.\u201d\n\u25a0 This clause only authorizes an \u201cadditional report\u201d in a case where a \u201cstenographic report of the proceedings on the trial\u201d has been prepared1 by one party and signed by the trial judge, from which, \u201cwith the approval of the judge,\u201d certain proceedings \u201cother than the evidence and rulings of the court in respect thereto,\u201d etc., have been omitted. In such case the adverse party may cause \u201cthe parts so omitted to be signed by the judge as an additional report.\u201d The instrument signed and filed June 15> entitled \u201cStatement of Facts,\u201d does not purport to be a \u201cstenographic report.\u201d It contains only four pages. The \u201cAdditional Report\u201d contains fifty-seven pages of testimony and several pages of exhibits. The \u201cStatement of Facts\u201d is certified to contain all the \u201cevidence offered on the hearing of the cause,\u201d and the \u201cAdditional Report\u201d is certified to contain \u201call the testimony offered or received on the trial.\u201d It does not appear from said \u201cStatement of Facts\u201d or from any order made in the cause that anything was omitted therefrom, \u201cwith the approval of the judge, \u2019 \u2019 nor does the \u2018 \u2018 Additional Report\u201d purport to contain anything that was omitted from the \u201cStatement of Facts,\u201d \u201cwith the approval of the judge.\u201d\nThe instrument designated an \u201cAdditional Report,\u201d signed November 5, cannot be held an \u201cAdditional Report\u201d within the meaning of the statute, first, because the \u201cStatement of Facts\u201d signed and filed June 15 does not purport to be \u201ca correct stenographic report of the proceedings on the trial,\u201d etc., and it is only where such a report is signed by the judge that an \u201cAdditional Report\u201d may be signed by him; second, because it does not appear either from said \u201cStatement of Facts\u201d or from the common law record that anything whs omitted from such \u201cStatement of Facts,\u201d \u201cwith the approval of the judge,\u201d and the \u201cAdditional Report\u201d does not purport to set out anything which was omitted from such \u201cStatement of Facts,\u201d \u201cwith the approval of the judge,\u201d and it is only where some part of the proceedings on the trial are omitted \u201cwith the approval of the judge\u201d that he is authorized to sign an additional report; third, the statute only authorizes the omission from a \u201cstenographic report,\u201d \u201cwith the approval of the judge\u201d of \u201cproceedings other than the evidence and the rulings of the court with respect thereto and the charge of the court,\u201d and the \u201cAdditional Report\u201d only purports to set out the evidence and the rulings of the court in respect thereto; fourth, because the time for filing a \u201cBill of Exceptions\u201d expired, at the latest, June 15, there was no order giving the plaintiff time to file an additional report after that time, the \u201cAdditional Report\u201d was not signed until November 5, and the \u201cAdditional Report\u201d must be signed within the time allowed for the signing the original report, or within such time as the court may, by order entered before the time for signing the original report has expired, grant for the signing the additional report. \u25a0\nIndependent of the provisions of the Municipal Court Act the trial judge had no authority on November 5 to sign the \u201cAdditional Beport\u201d of a cause tried May 9. It appears affirmatively from his certificate \u201cthat he had no memoranda by which he could correct said statement,\u201d (the statement of facts). He properly held that without such memoranda he could not correct the statement. But without such memoranda he was without authority to sign a new report of the proceedings and evidence on the trial.\nWe think that the motion of plaintiff in error to strike from the transcript filed in the cause November 12, 1908, the \u201cOriginal Additional Beport\u201d filed in the Municipal Court November 5, 1908, should have been allowed. The order entered December 12, 1908, denying said motion will be vacated and the motion will be allowed.\nThe instrument signed June 15 and designated a \u201cStatement of Facts\u201d begins with the statement that there was evidence on the part of the plaintiff that on a certain day plaintiff and one John D. Bosie entered into a contract in writing, which contained certain provisions which are set out. The instrument is not set out, nor is it stated that it was admitted in evidence. It then states that the evidence on the part of the plaintiff showed that certain payments, and none other, had been made on the contract; that it appeared from the evidence that John D. Bosie assigned said contract to defendant, and that plaintiff assented thereto; that defendant was in possession of said premises under said contract, and that a demand on her by plaintiff for possession was served on a certain day, and the same is set out; that on behalf of the defendant it appeared that plaintiff executed a certain deed to said premises, purporting to convey the same to her, and that the defendant executed certain promissory notes, describing them. Then follow certain offers of proof by defendant, which proofs were excluded by the court.\nThe instrument does not purport to he a \u201ccorrect statement of the facts appearing on the trial, and of all questions of law involved therein.;\u201d it is not certified to be such \u201ccorrect statement,\u201d and its contents show that it is not a correct statement of facts.\nThe instrument is not and does not purport to be, \u201cA correct stenographic report of the proceedings on the trial. \u2019 \u2019 While it is certified that the evidence therein set forth \u201con the evidence offered on the hearing of the cause,\u201d the instrument itself does not purport to set out the evidence, and cannot, therefore, be regarded as in substance, \u201cA stenographic report of the proceedings on the trial,\u201d or a substantial equivalent therefor.\nThe statute prescribes the condition for the review by this court of a judgment of the Municipal Court in cases of the fourth class. To authorize such review, the trial judge must sign and place on file in the case, either \u201ca correct statement of the facts appearing on the trial,\u201d or a \u201ccorrect stenographic report of the proceedings at the trial.\u201d Clause seven of said section 23 provides that, \u201cNo order or judgment sought to be reviewed shall be reversed unless the Supreme Court or Appellate Court, as the case may be, shall be satisfied from said statement or stenographic report, or reports, signed by said judge, that such order or judgment is contrary to law .and the evidence, or that such order and judgment resulted from substantial errors, \u2019 \u2019 etc. Under this provision we can look only into such statement or stenographic report as the act provides for and requires to ascertain whether the judgment is contrary to the law and evidence, or resulted from substantial errors of the court, and it follows, that unless there is in the record such statement or stenographic report, the judgment must be affirmed. In this record there is no such statement or stenographic report as the statute provides for and requires, and the judgment must therefore be affirmed.\nThe order of this court of December 14, 1908, denying the motion of plaintiff in error to strike from the additional transcript filed November 12,1908, the \u201cAdditional Report,\u201d signed November 5, 1908, will be vacated and said motion will be allowed; the judgment of the Municipal Court will be affirmed, but neither the costs of the transcript filed November 12,1908, nor of the abstract thereof, will be taxed against plaintiff in error.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John 0. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.",
      "James Linden, for defendant in error; E. J. Mc-Ardle, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel R. Hurford, Defendant in Error, v. Ida M. Rosie, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 14,718.\n1. Municipal Court\u2014when additional report unauthorised. Meld, that the additional report filed in this case designed as supplementary to the statement of facts previously signed by the judge, both instruments having been filed, was unauthorized. The manner and occasions when such an additional report may properly be signed and filed are fully set forth in the opinion.\n2. Municipal Court\u2014what essential to review of fourth class case. To authorize such review, the trial judge must sign and place on file in the case \u201ceither a correct statement of facts appearing on the trial\u201d or a \u201ccorrect stenographic report of the proceedings at the trial.\u201d When neither of these alternative provisions is observed, and the document filed is not such as will enable the Appellate Court to ascertain whether the judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence or resulted from substantial errors of the court, judgment Will be affirmed.\nForcible detainer. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Mancha Bbuggemeyeb, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 22, 1909.\nJohn 0. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.\nJames Linden, for defendant in error; E. J. Mc-Ardle, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0605-01",
  "first_page_order": 641,
  "last_page_order": 648
}