{
  "id": 2947464,
  "name": "Valentine Woods, Defendant in Error, v. Norman McCrimmin, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Woods v. McCrimmin",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-20",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,081",
  "first_page": "399",
  "last_page": "400",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 399"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 161,
    "char_count": 1859,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.553285487460147e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40171859440453866
    },
    "sha256": "16550b5c6618fcf48bc2591458f171f420a818e9a0a0ab11e508e0273ce1e7ae",
    "simhash": "1:dbe18c0460ad12f4",
    "word_count": 315
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Valentine Woods, Defendant in Error, v. Norman McCrimmin, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McDonald\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McDonald"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William T. Baird, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Albert Hassell, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Valentine Woods, Defendant in Error, v. Norman McCrimmin, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 22,081.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William- N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 20, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Valentine Woods, plaintiff, against Norman McCrimmin, defendant, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of plaintiff\u2019s horse. From a judgment for plaintiff for two hundred dollars, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Limitation of actions, \u00a7 108 \u2014necessity of pleading statute. The Statute of Limitations is an affirmative defense and must be specially pleaded in order to be availed of.\n2. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, \u00a7 27*\u2014when rules of must he in hill of exceptions. Questions based upon the rules of the Municipal Court of Chicago cannot be passed upon by the Appellate Court in the absence of a preservation of the rules in the bill of exceptions, as the Appellate Court will not take judicial notice of such rules.\n3. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, \u00a7 28*\u2014when objection to verdict is too late. Where no instruction was asked to eliminate a charge of malice from a tort claim, nor objection made in the trial court to the form of a verdict against the defendant on the ground that it could not be determined from such verdict whether the defendant was found guilty of a tort as charged in the original statement of the claim, or of malice as charged in an amendment thereto, held that such objection came too late when first made on review.\nWilliam T. Baird, for plaintiff in error.\nAlbert Hassell, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section .number."
  },
  "file_name": "0399-01",
  "first_page_order": 425,
  "last_page_order": 426
}