{
  "id": 4946587,
  "name": "Asahel Gage v. Charles B. Eggleston",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gage v. Eggleston",
  "decision_date": "1888-05-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "599",
  "last_page": "600",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 Ill. App. 599"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "98 Ill. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ill. 190",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2702125
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/75/0190-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ill. 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2628977
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/68/0128-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5267635
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/43/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5211986
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/33/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. 194",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5211329
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/33/0194-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill. 113",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2590850
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/16/0113-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill. 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2576577
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/11/0361-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2465,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.542,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.379077405349335e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6401434987136315
    },
    "sha256": "05ea920a1fa89c997f1136592bbc0409445d44c9e1db0e5bbbc9c0f5d694ddf1",
    "simhash": "1:b631f480feeaa0f3",
    "word_count": 430
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:00:37.527249+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Asahel Gage v. Charles B. Eggleston."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McAllister, J.\nThis was a bill in chancery brought by appellee Eggleston against appellant Gage, for the purpose of removing, as a cloud upon the title of certain described premises of the former, a tax sale and the certificate issued thereon' to the latter. The defendant answered, denying all material allegations of the bill, to which replication was filed. Upon the hearing a decree passed granting the relief prayed. The defendant brings the case to this court on appeal, and assigns for error, among others, that the decree is not supported by any evidence.\nThe record contains no depositions, master\u2019s report .or certificate of evidence. Mor does the decree recite any facts as found by the chancellor. In such a case as this, where there is an absence of facts recited in the decree for its support, the party in whose favor the decree was rendered, must, in order to retain it on appeal or error, see to it that the evidence is preserved in the record in some of the modes recognized by the established rules of chancery practice in this State. White v. Morrison, 11 Ill. 361; Nichols v. Thornton, 16 Ill. 113; Mason v. Bair, 33 Ill. 194; Waugh v. Robbins, 33 Ill. 181; Eaton v. Sanders, 43 Ill. 435; McIntosh v. Saunders, 68 Ill. 128; Moss v. McCall, 75 Ill. 190.\nIn Marion v. Collins, 98 Ill. 516, the court\" says: \u201cAppellee has preserved no evidence in the record, and, according to the practice in courts of equity as announced in many cases in this court, the party in whose favor the decree granting relief is rendered, to maintain it, must preserve the evidence, or the decree must find specific facts that were proved on the hearing. It is not the duty of the party against whom the decree granting the relief is rendered, to preserve the evidence.\u201d\nFor the reason, therefore, that no- facts are found by the decree, and no evidence preserved in the record in this case, the decree must be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed cmd remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McAllister, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Augustus M. Gage, for appellant.",
      "Mr. M. M. Jones, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Asahel Gage v. Charles B. Eggleston.\nPractice.\u2014Decree\u2014Evidence\u2014When to he Preserved in Record\u2014Bill Qujet Title.\nUnder the rules of chancery practice in this State the party in whose favo the decree grants relief, must preserve the evidence in the record, unlessr the decree recites the facts proved on the hearing.\n[Opinion filed May 31, 1888.]\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Qwynn Garnett, Judge, presiding.\nMr. Augustus M. Gage, for appellant.\nMr. M. M. Jones, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0599-01",
  "first_page_order": 595,
  "last_page_order": 596
}