{
  "id": 2972657,
  "name": "Richard J. Prest, Appellant, v. Carman Laundry Supply Company and H. Hinchliffe, Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Prest v. Carman Laundry Supply Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-05-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,040",
  "first_page": "354",
  "last_page": "355",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 Ill. App. 354"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 1976,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "sha256": "22d3445b74a17e553324ac8b9a823035b4843984d3cf77c41ddc09d15502f855",
    "simhash": "1:851a5fa9d00bbb83",
    "word_count": 320
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:30.955611+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Richard J. Prest, Appellant, v. Carman Laundry Supply Company and H. Hinchliffe, Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George V. McIntyre, for appellant.",
      "Howard Ames, Harry W. Meneley and Sylvester G. Abbott, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Richard J. Prest, Appellant, v. Carman Laundry Supply Company and H. Hinchliffe, Appellees.\nGen. No. 22,040.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. M. L. McKinley, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 1, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Richard J. Prest, plaintiff, against Car-man Laundry Supply Company and H. Hinchliffe, defendants, to recover compensation for injuries received while he was a passenger on a car of the Chicago Railways Company. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants were in control of a certain wagon being driven along Des Plaines street at the crossing with Madison street, and that they so negligently managed the wagon that a collision occurred and plaintiff was injured. As directed by the court, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendants not guilty, and upon this verdict judgment was entered. Plaintiff appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nAppeal and errob, \u00a7 1303 \u2014when assignments of error not considered where Mil of exceptions insufficient. On appeal, where the document purporting to be a bill of exceptions not only does not pretend to contain all of the evidence, but states by implication that it does not, the Appellate Court must assume that there was evidence sufficient to justify the trial court in directing the verdict.\nThe certificate of the trial judge appended to the bill of exceptions recited that the foregoing \u201cis a synopsis of the evidence offered or received on the trial of the foregoing entitled cause * * * which were all of the proceedings, other than evidence as above described, had on the trial of the foregoing entitled cause.\u201d\nGeorge V. McIntyre, for appellant.\nHoward Ames, Harry W. Meneley and Sylvester G. Abbott, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0354-01",
  "first_page_order": 376,
  "last_page_order": 377
}