{
  "id": 2922186,
  "name": "James C. Shreffler, Appellee, v. Cora Fuller, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shreffler v. Fuller",
  "decision_date": "1918-02-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,469",
  "first_page": "630",
  "last_page": "631",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ill. App. 630"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 3614,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.555,
    "sha256": "1b3b0dc8a1706e5037ef0c0343c99e5d963e9b045a07f3b1611ee9108008220f",
    "simhash": "1:aff16b37ba2f2a80",
    "word_count": 619
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:32.195438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James C. Shreffler, Appellee, v. Cora Fuller, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n5. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1489 \u2014when error in admission of evidence is harmless. The testimony of a witness to the result of a measurement of lumber, that he evidently only knew as he was told by the party measuring it in his presence, was incompetent, but its admission not harmful where there was other competent uncontradicted evidence of the same measurement.\n6. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1466*\u2014when admission of hill of particulars in evidence is harmless error. The admission in evidence of plaintiff\u2019s bill of particulars, over objection, was not reversible error where there was no reason to suppose it was\u201e considered or used by the jury as substantive evidence.\n7. Trial, \u00a7 233*\u2014when hill of particulars is properly sent to jury room. The bill of particulars was properly sent to the jury room as part of the pleadings to he used by them in considering and discussing the items of the plaintiff\u2019s claim, although it had been erroneously admitted in evidence, in an action of assumpsit to recover for labor performed.\n8. Trial, \u00a7 272*\u2014when requested interrogatory is properly refused. An interrogatory to he answered by the jury, but not presented until after argument, is properly refused.\n9. Trial, \u00a7 270*\u2014when special interrogatories are properly refused as a whole. Special interrogatories submitted to be answered by the jury and returned with their general verdict, held properly refused, considered as a whole, where they were directed to the several different items of plaintiff\u2019s claim, seeking a finding upon each, and not to a controlling fact in the case as a whole, under the second clause \u00f3f section 79 of the Practice Act (J. & A. f 8616), providing that the jury may find specially upon questions of fact along with their general verdict.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank J. Burns and James T. Burns, for appellant.",
      "C. M. Clay Buntain, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James C. Shreffler, Appellee, v. Cora Fuller, Appellant.\nGen. No. 6,469.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 864 \u2014what is duty of appellant as to filing abstract. It is the duty of an appellant to file an abstract showing the matters on which he relies for a reversal of the judgment.\n2. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 894*\u2014what is right of appellee as to filing additional abstract. The appellee has the right to file an additional abstract, but is under no duty to make it full and complete.\n3. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 864*\u2014when record will not be examined. A reviewing court will not examine the record to find grounds for reversing, but may do so to find reasons for affirming a judgment.\n4. Contin\u00faan ce, \u00a7 7*-\u2014when denial of motion, for is proper. The denial of motion for a continuance in the middle of a trial solely on the ground of filing of additional counts which did not enlarge the bill of particulars and contained nothing to surprise the defendant or require continuance, was not erroneous.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. Abthtjb W. Deselm, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 12, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by James C. Shreffler, plaintiff, against Cora Fuller, defendant, to recover for labor in clearing some wood land and working the logs into lumber. From a judgment for plaintiff for $486.95, including interest after date of verdict for $475, defendant appeals.\nFrank J. Burns and James T. Burns, for appellant.\nC. M. Clay Buntain, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0630-01",
  "first_page_order": 654,
  "last_page_order": 655
}