{
  "id": 4997415,
  "name": "Henry W. Allison and Mary A. Allison v. Margaret E. Allison",
  "name_abbreviation": "Allison v. Allison",
  "decision_date": "1889-03-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "385",
  "last_page": "386",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 Ill. App. 385"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill. App. 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        863706
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/23/0450-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 160,
    "char_count": 1765,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5431796367921718e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6732844270071344
    },
    "sha256": "cffc3370ec5200a1c0c72a422adadfb2e8b747504681361db25a79a2549778f2",
    "simhash": "1:d79195a008900ad1",
    "word_count": 320
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:16:31.539979+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry W. Allison and Mary A. Allison v. Margaret E. Allison."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Guriam.\nThis court, in the case of The People ex rel. v. Augerer et al., 23 Ill. App. 450, and in Heep v. Jaenermann, same, 453, declined to consider the merits of a case where there was a non-compliance with rule 7, in making and furnishing abstracts. It is unnecessary for us to repeat what is said in those cases. The rule of the court is there declared.\nIn this case no effort to furnish an abstract is made, at most merely an index.\nWe quote from what is filed as an abstract of bill, answer and evidence.\n\u201c 7, 8, 9, complainant\u2019s bill of complaint.\n\u201c 12 to 14, defendant\u2019s answer.\n\u201c 18 to 55, bill of exceptions including all the testimony.\u201d\nThis is not an attempt to furnish an abstract. It is in no sense a compliance with the rule. We decline to consider the merits of the case, and affirm the decree under rule 26 of this court.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Guriam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. C. J. Bobden and Bobinson & Howabd, for appellants.",
      "Messrs. Callahan, Jones & Lowe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry W. Allison and Mary A. Allison v. Margaret E. Allison.\nPractice\u2014Appeal\u2014Imperfect Abstract\u2014Mules.\n1. The merits of a cause will not be considered by this court, unless an abstract of the record is furnished.\n2. An index of the record is not sufficient.\n[Opinion filed March 1, 1889.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Lawrence County; the lion. Wm. C. Jones, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. C. J. Bobden and Bobinson & Howabd, for appellants.\nMessrs. Callahan, Jones & Lowe, for appellee.\nThe abstract furnished by appellant in this case gives no information as to what the record contains. It is at most but an index to the record. We can not, from this pretended abstract, see whether error is, or is not, well assigned on the record. Neither in matter or form does it comply with rule 21 of this court. Under rule 26 this court should refuse to consider the case on its merits, and dismiss the appeal."
  },
  "file_name": "0385-01",
  "first_page_order": 381,
  "last_page_order": 382
}