{
  "id": 2876634,
  "name": "William H. Brown & Company, Defendant in Error, v. H. F. Hisgen, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "William H. Brown & Co. v. Hisgen",
  "decision_date": "1915-12-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,475",
  "first_page": "465",
  "last_page": "466",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 465"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 160,
    "char_count": 2342,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.615,
    "sha256": "06a07560edf4a860db56884cdc85f87cb721687bf3fe684bc16dfdb7c20bf82e",
    "simhash": "1:197f52abd1ac89d8",
    "word_count": 398
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William H. Brown & Company, Defendant in Error, v. H. F. Hisgen, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Victor A. G. Murrell, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Litzinger, McGurn & Reid, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William H. Brown & Company, Defendant in Error, v. H. F. Hisgen, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,475.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 26 \u2014what omissions render statement msufficient. On a writ of error to review a judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago, a document certified by a judge of that court to be a \u201cStatement of facts appearing upon the trial * * * and all questions of law involved * * * and the decisions of the court upon all such questions of law,\u201d held neither \u201ca correct statement of the facts appearing on the trial\u201d nor \u201ca correct stenographic report of the trial,\u201d within the meaning of the Municipal Court Act, sec. 23, cl. 6 (J. & A. \u00b6 3335), where it appears that such statement merely contains the testimony of witnesses in narrative form without a statement of the questions of law involved or the decisions of the court thereon, and where it does not appear that the evidence recited was all the evidence heard or proffered at the trial.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a726 \u2014when insufficient statement stricken. On a writ of error to review a judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago, where a document purporting to be a \u201cStatement of facts appearing upon the trial\u201d does not comply with the provisions of the Municipal Court Act, sec. 23, cl. 6 (J. & A. \u00b6 3335), requiring to authorize such review that the trial judge sign and place on file either \u201ca correct statement of the facts appearing on the trial,\u201d or \u201ca correct stenographic report of the trial,\u201d a motion by appellee to strike will be allowed by the Appellate Court, for the reason that such a document presents nothing for review.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Raffebtt, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAlarmed.\nOpinion filed December 6, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by William E. Brown & Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against H. F. Hisgen, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nVictor A. G. Murrell, for plaintiff in error.\nLitzinger, McGurn & Reid, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0465-01",
  "first_page_order": 491,
  "last_page_order": 492
}