{
  "id": 2918432,
  "name": "Henry F. C. Harmening, Defendant in Error, v. Frank O. Hawley, Plaintiif in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harmening v. Hawley",
  "decision_date": "1917-08-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,418",
  "first_page": "487",
  "last_page": "487",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ill. App. 487"
    }
  ],
  "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": 1751,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34667561699543104
    },
    "sha256": "bac53fff2b42597d62b87c149b9725e75e44fd455643ec14e277bfd548676c3f",
    "simhash": "1:485f8234b94902b8",
    "word_count": 293
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:32.195438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry F. C. Harmening, Defendant in Error, v. Frank O. Hawley, Plaintiif in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Niehaus\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Niehaus"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles H. Darling, for plaintiff in error.",
      "S. L. Rathje, for defendant in error; Raymond & Newhall, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry F. C. Harmening, Defendant in Error, v. Frank O. Hawley, Plaintiif in Error.\nGen. No. 6,418.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Records, \u00a7 7 \u2014conclusiveness of court record. The record of a court imports verity and cannot be contradicted by other evidence, but is conclusive upon the parties to the suit as well as all others whose interests may be affected thereby.\n2. Records, \u00a7 7*\u2014what does not constitute contradiction of court record. The validity of a decree shown by the record to have been regularly entered in open court on a certain day is not impaired by evidence of indorsement of a file mark of a different date on the back of apparently the same decree by the clerk oFcourt, and such indorsement or the fact they are apparently the same decree cannot be regarded as contradiction of such record.\nError to the Circuit Court of Du Page county; the Hon. Mazzoti Sltjsseb, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917. Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed August 7, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by Henry F. C. Harmening, complainant, against Frank 0. Hawley and others, defendants, to have a certain contract for the purchase of real estate entered into between the complainants and the defendants declared forfeited, and for other relief. From a decree against defendants, upon answer of defendant Hawley and default of the other defendants, defendant Hawley brings error.\nCharles H. Darling, for plaintiff in error.\nS. L. Rathje, for defendant in error; Raymond & Newhall, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0487-01",
  "first_page_order": 511,
  "last_page_order": 511
}