{ "id": 5120542, "name": "Lang v. Max", "name_abbreviation": "Lang v. Max", "decision_date": "1893-04-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "465", "last_page": "467", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "50 Ill. App. 465" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "41 Ill. App. 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5032127 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/41/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Ill. App. 571", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5005803 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/35/0571-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ill. App. 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5070445 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/44/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 Ill. App. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5145401 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/46/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 Ill. 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2885915 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/116/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ill. App. 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5054474 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/43/0363-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill. 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5204754 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/28/0043-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 210, "char_count": 3337, "ocr_confidence": 0.507, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.167103914488156e-07, "percentile": 0.939673702984228 }, "sha256": "c00a44194477f24162e3ed427d2d250b698fda1f5a7c8029fdaad04f581c2e35", "simhash": "1:bfd3ed96329d5cb8", "word_count": 600 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:42.711650+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Lang v. Max." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Opinion of the Court,\nShepard, J.\nThere is no assignment of errors upon the record of this cause, and hence nothing for this court to act upon.\n\u201c An assignment of error in this court performs the same office as a declaration in a court of original jurisdiction,\u201d and \u201c it would be just as regular and proper for the Circuit Court to render a judgment in a cause where there is no declaration, as for this court to affirm or reverse a judgment where there is no assignment of errors.\u201d Williston v. Fisher, 28 Ill. 43; Conlon v. Manning, 43 Ill. App. 363.\nA failure to assign errors upon the record is not a mere form that can be waived but a matter of substance; nor is it sufficient that errors are set forth in the abstract. It has been repeatedly held that no error can be considered except such as have been assigned on the record. Ditch v. Sennott, 116 Ill. 288, and cases there cited; Anderson v. Olin, 46 Ill. App. 283; Wilcox v. Moore, 44 Ill. App. 293; Waixel v. Harrison, 35 Ill. App. 571; Conlon v. Manning, supra.\nAnd here there was no waiver; the appellee expressly insists, in his brief, upon the point that no errors have been assigned upon the record.\nWhen the attention of appellant\u2019s counsel was called to the fact that no errors were assigned upon the record, by appellee\u2019s brief, he might have applied for leave to assign errors instanter. Ditch v. Sennott, supra; Anderson v. Olin, supra. But he did not do so.\nAlthough without power to decide anything in this case b\u00e9cause of the absence of a proper assignment of errors upon the record, we have examined the record and briefs on both sides, sufficiently to enable us to say the appeal seems to be without merit, and, as was said in Sterling v. Strauss, 41 Ill. App. 147, \u201c probably it will not be worth while to bring the case here again.\u201d\nThe appeal will be dismissed at the cost of appellant.", "type": "majority", "author": "Shepard, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "M. W. Whittemore and B. H. Ettelson, attorneys for appellant.", "E. A. Sherburne, attorney for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Lang v. Max.\n1. Assignment of Error\u2014Absence of from, the Record.\u2014An assignment of eiTor in this court performs the same office as a declaration in a court of ordinary jurisdiction, and it would be just as regular and proper for the Circuit Court to render a judgment in a cause where there is no declaration, as for this court to affirm or reverse a judgment where there is no assignment of error.\n2. Assignment of Error\u2014Failure to Assign.\u2014A failure to assign errors upon the record is not a mere form that can be waived, but a matter of substance; nor is it sufficient that errors are set forth in the abstract. No error can be considered except such as has been assigned on the record.\n3. Assignment of Errors\u2014Leave to Assign Instanter.\u2014Where errors are not assigned, the appellant, upon his attention, being called to it, may apply for leave to assign errors instanter.\n4. Assignment of Errors\u2014Waiver.\u2014Where the appellee expressly insists in his brief upon the point that no errors are assigned upon the record, he does not waive the point by filing his brief.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit. In the Superior Court of Cook County. Declaration and pleas of general issue and set-off; trial by court; finding and judgment for plaintiff; appeal by plaintiff. Heard in this court at the March term, 1893, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed April 12, 1893.\nThe opinion states the case.\nM. W. Whittemore and B. H. Ettelson, attorneys for appellant.\nE. A. Sherburne, attorney for appellee." }, "file_name": "0465-01", "first_page_order": 461, "last_page_order": 463 }