{
  "id": 2859238,
  "name": "Chicago Telephone Company, Defendant in Error, v. Eliza Haley, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chicago Telephone Co. v. Haley",
  "decision_date": "1914-05-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,670",
  "first_page": "35",
  "last_page": "36",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 35"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1594,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "sha256": "3ba130e046d8289622f74cdb1d5835a1963d1e37c91b428d1cc9e64c60ced489",
    "simhash": "1:c52bcb819284a9fd",
    "word_count": 264
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Chicago Telephone Company, Defendant in Error, v. Eliza Haley, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 866*\u2014when abstract insufficient. Where what is designated an \u201cabstract\u201d contains nothing more than a party\u2019s own statement of what took place at the trial, and is not an abstract of anything preserved in the record, the statements therein cannot he considered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Eliza Haley, per se.",
      "Holt, Cutting & Sidley, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Chicago Telephone Company, Defendant in Error, v. Eliza Haley, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,670.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 966 \u2014when record presents no question for review. On writ of error to review a judgment in replevin where there is nothing for review except the common-law record which contains nothing but the replevin affidavit, writ and bond, the entry of defendant\u2019s appearance and the judgment order, the latter reciting that evidence was heard, but such evidence was not preserved in the record, held in the absence of any irregularities on the face of the record there was nothing to review.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Robert H. Scott, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 19, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nReplevin by Chicago Telephone Company against Eliza Haley to recover a telephone equipment of the value of fourteen dollars. To reverse a judgment in favor of paintiff, defendant brings error.\nPlaintiff in error undertook to handle her own case in this court.\nEliza Haley, per se.\nHolt, Cutting & Sidley, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0035-01",
  "first_page_order": 61,
  "last_page_order": 62
}