{
  "id": 2945547,
  "name": "Henry W. Oetgen, Appellee, v. Jesse Lowe, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Oetgen v. Lowe",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "608",
  "last_page": "609",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 608"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2170,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "sha256": "9183983094d0b82e0d13daf2bff6c63b3c49af3ce702887f756a35f7117f36cb",
    "simhash": "1:29b4eab5d6efa393",
    "word_count": 352
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry W. Oetgen, Appellee, v. Jesse Lowe, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Instructions, \u00a7 159*\u2014when instruction to consider all instructions proper. An instruction held proper which required the jury to consider all of the instructions on the question of a release pleaded to the contract sued on.\n4. Instructions, \u00a7 154*\u2014when modification proper. Modification of instructions to conform to facts in evidence, held proper.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. A. Jarman and Glass & Bottenberg, for appellant. '",
      "B. 0. Willard, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry W. Oetgen, Appellee, v. Jesse Lowe, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the \"Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 450 \u2014when objection as to inadmissibility of evidence may not be raised. An objection to evidence that it was not admissible under the pleadings cannot be made for the first time on appeal.\n2. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 452*\u2014when question whether stipulation is inadmissible in evidence not saved for review. Where a stipulation, admitted in evidence without objection, stated that a certain party would testify that he was the owner of certain land, that certain parties had contracted with him to pay certain drainage assessments levied against the land, that he never released the contract, and that he had not paid any assessments, the question whether the court erred in admitting the stipulation in evidence because the contract referred to could only be proved by the writing itself and the statement that \u201che never released\u201d was a conclusion, held not saved for review.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Schuyler county; the Hon. Guy R. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Henry W. Oetgen, plaintiff, against Jesse Lowe, defendant, to recover under a certain contract by defendant to drain certain of plaintiff\u2019s lands in a certain drainage district and to protect same from overflow and to pay certain assessments on other lands of plaintiff in said district. From a judgment for plaintiff for $328.57, defendant appeals.\nL. A. Jarman and Glass & Bottenberg, for appellant. '\nB. 0. Willard, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0608-01",
  "first_page_order": 634,
  "last_page_order": 635
}