{
  "id": 2719702,
  "name": "Sidney W. Worthy, Defendant in Error, v. Edward Hale Bush, Trustee, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Worthy v. Bush",
  "decision_date": "1911-03-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,269",
  "first_page": "70",
  "last_page": "71",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "160 Ill. App. 70"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "124 Ill. App. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2504630
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/124/0097-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 1790,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6343475431493036e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6897301734579893
    },
    "sha256": "ed80f888f3d7ce43bc18f1a06b9ff2e9c7953468ee489deb15e45f6e172b97ea",
    "simhash": "1:aff20f2341d69080",
    "word_count": 321
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:25:51.885060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sidney W. Worthy, Defendant in Error, v. Edward Hale Bush, Trustee, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the files will be allowed. The order of the Municipal Court extending the time gives the defendant \u201cfifteen days extension of time, said period to expire June 7th, A. D. 1910.\u201d It is dated May 23, 1910. The time which plaintiff in error had to file the said bill of exceptions did not expire until May 25, 1910, and had the order not added the statement of the day at which said period of fifteen days extension would expire, it would, in accordance with the ruling in Czajowski v. Robinson, 124 Ill. App. 97, have been held to expire on June 9, 1910, but with the addition of the words expressly making it expire on June 7, 1910, the question becomes one of construction of tbe order, and we feel forced to tbe conclusion that tbe fifteen days extension was to be reckoned from May 23, 1910, when tbe order was entered, and expired June 7, 1910. '\nTbe bill of exceptions was not signed or filed until June 9,1910. That was too late, and it is not properly a part of tbe record.-\nMotion to strike bill of exceptions allowed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. M. Peterson, for plaintiff in error.",
      "C. M. Cavenee, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sidney W. Worthy, Defendant in Error, v. Edward Hale Bush, Trustee, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,269.\nAppeals and errors\u2014when hill of exceptions stricken. An order of extension for a specified number of days but which provides that the time for the filing of the bill of exceptions shall expire upon a specified day, requires that the bill of exceptions shall be filed upon such specified day, otherwise it will be stricken upon motion.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Max Eberhardt, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1910.\nMotion to strike allowed.\nOpinion filed March 9, 1911.\nR. M. Peterson, for plaintiff in error.\nC. M. Cavenee, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0070-01",
  "first_page_order": 88,
  "last_page_order": 89
}