{
  "id": 2922308,
  "name": "Charles Herman, Appellee, v. Henry Heuer, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Herman v. Heuer",
  "decision_date": "1917-08-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,429",
  "first_page": "404",
  "last_page": "405",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ill. App. 404"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 1861,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.586,
    "sha256": "ee8e01aff0b3d32358a718345a61dff9e99abda4be8f5cb8374739a7ef78fb1e",
    "simhash": "1:9b2181513a031e11",
    "word_count": 306
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:32.195438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Herman, Appellee, v. Henry Heuer, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 892 \u2014when refusal of court to direct verdict not reviewable. Where the refusal of the court to direct a verdict was neither abstracted nor covered by the errors assigned, no question was presented for review.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 788*\u2014what must appear in bill of exceptions as basis for review of instructions and sufficiency of evidence. Where bill of exceptions as abstracted contained only the evidence and did not include instructions, which were only certified by the clerk as a part of the record, and it was not shown who offered them, plaintiff, defendant or the court on its own motion, or that any one objected to them when given, and no motion for a new trial appeared iff the bill of exceptions, held that neither the instructions nor whether the evidence sustained the verdict would be considered, notwithstanding the record proper, as distinguished from the bill of exceptions, set out the instructions and motion for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rathje, Lawlor & Connor, for appellant; Edwin D. Lawlor, of counsel.",
      "Herbert A. Schryver, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Herman, Appellee, v. Henry Heuer, Appellant.\nGen. No. 6,429.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page county; the Hon. Mazzini Sltjsseb, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed August 7, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Charles Herman, plaintiff, against Henry Heuer, defendant, to recover $390.20 under the common counts with affidavit of claim, to which defendant filed general issue with affidavit of defense and notice of set-off of $150. From a judgment for plaintiff for $390.20, defendant appeals.\nRathje, Lawlor & Connor, for appellant; Edwin D. Lawlor, of counsel.\nHerbert A. Schryver, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0404-01",
  "first_page_order": 428,
  "last_page_order": 429
}