{
  "id": 5780302,
  "name": "Andrew Mattson v. Benedix G. Borgeson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mattson v. Borgeson",
  "decision_date": "1887-11-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "79",
  "last_page": "80",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 Ill. App. 79"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 101,
    "char_count": 1158,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "sha256": "d752994f5c5d6f8131ec93f4feef43388c79805cb7f9652a952b9c734f7e9fa0",
    "simhash": "1:11808e446cf220a8",
    "word_count": 202
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:50:43.290476+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Andrew Mattson v. Benedix G. Borgeson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe ground of error alleged in this case is that the jury did not pronounce their verdict in open court, nor was the verdict reduced to writing and signed by the foreman of the jury. On examining the record we find a formal verdict set out in it, as returned by the jury in open court. The bill of exceptions contains no statement as to the form in which the verdict was rendered, and we must therefore presume the verdict, as set out in the record, to have been returned in open court in proper form.\nThe bill of exceptions shows no exception whatever to the manner of returning the verdict.\nThe judgment must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. H. H. Anderson, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. Blanke & Chytraus, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Andrew Mattson v. Benedix G. Borgeson.\nPractice\u2014Bill of Exceptions\u2014Form of Verdict\u2014Presumption of Regularity.\nIn the absence of anything to the contrary appearing in the bill of exceptions, it will be presumed that the verdict as set out in the record was returned in open court and in proper form.\n[Opinion filed November 23, 1887.]\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Riohabd Pbendergast, Judge, presiding.\nMr. H. H. Anderson, for appellant.\nMessrs. Blanke & Chytraus, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0079-01",
  "first_page_order": 73,
  "last_page_order": 74
}