{
  "id": 5119474,
  "name": "Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Hession, Administratrix, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Hession",
  "decision_date": "1894-02-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "685",
  "last_page": "687",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 Ill. App. 685"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3784,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "sha256": "8c6421f70ea0a71f6cd3dd8498882ead5fa520d5550c5973bd5e6e58455586bc",
    "simhash": "1:3be085e529312dd5",
    "word_count": 655
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:42.711650+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Hession, Administratrix, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion of the Court,\nShepard, P. J.\nThe appellee\u2019s decedent was killed on October 9,1890, at the crossing of Fifty-first street, a public highway in Chicago, by the appellant\u2019s railroad, by there being run down by one of appellant\u2019s locomotives. Fifty-first street is crossed by a large number of tracks belonging to appellant, and at the point where the killed man was struck, he was more than 100 feet from the westernmost track and about half that distance from the easternmost track.\nThere was evidence tending to show that the locomotive which produced the killing was running at an excessive rate of speed, that its bell was not being rung as it should have been, and that the crossing gates were not closed, and the question of negligence was the main one on the trial.\nUnder the circumstances, as found to exist, we can not say that the damages are excessive, nor can we say from such inspection as we have given the evidence, that the court and jury were not warranted in finding adversely to the appellant on the question of negligence.\nWe think, therefore, it would be our duty to sustain the judgment, even though we were at liberty to most critically examine the record, including the bill of exceptions. But if we thought otherwise, we should nevertheless have to affirm the judgment, because the bill of exceptions is no part of the record in this court under the stipulation entered into between counsel.\nThe original bill of exceptions, instead of a copy, may be incorporated in the transcript of the record for this court only when it is so agreed. Hurd\u2019s Rev. Stat. 1891, Sec. 68, Chap. 53. entitled \u201cFees and Salaries.\u201d\nThe stipulation accompanying the original bill of exceptions is that \u201c the- original bill of exceptions instead of a copy may be used in making up the record in the above entitled cause.\u201d\nThe stipulation is entitled in the cause in the Circuit Court, and is merely to the effect that in making up the record of that court the original may be used. There is nothing to indicate that it was the agreement of the parties that the original should be incorporated in the transcript for this court, and without such an agreement it has no place here.\nThis question has been repeatedly passed upon by this court, and always the same way. Overman v. Coal Company, No. 913, filed January 11, 1894,) and prior cases therein referred to.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed\u00bb",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Shepard, P. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gardner & McFadon, and Pliny B. Smith, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Case, Hogan & Case, and Frederick A. Mitchell, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Hession, Administratrix, etc.\n1. Record\u2014Stipulation as to Bill of Exceptions.\u2014Under Sec. 68, Chap. 53, R. S., entitled \u201c Fees and Salaries,\u201d the original bill of exceptions, instead of a copy, may be incorporated in the transcript of the record for this court, only when it is so agreed.\n2. Record\u2014Stipulation to Incorporate the Bill of Exceptions in the Record.\u2014A stipulation which provides that \u201c the original bill of exceptions, instead of a copy, may be used in making up the record,\u201d is merely to the effect that in making up the record of the lower court the original may be used. There is nothing to indicate that it was the agreement of the parties that the original should be incorporated in the transcript for the Appellate Court, and without such an agreement, it has no place in the Appellate Court.\nMemorandum.\u2014Case. In the Circuit Court of Cook County; theHon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Declaration, death by negligent act; plea of not guilty; trial by jury; verdict and judgment for plaintiff; appeal by defendant. Heard in this court at the October term, 1893, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed February 1, 1894.\nThe statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nGardner & McFadon, and Pliny B. Smith, attorneys for appellant.\nCase, Hogan & Case, and Frederick A. Mitchell, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0685-01",
  "first_page_order": 681,
  "last_page_order": 683
}