{
  "id": 5111144,
  "name": "Chicago & W. I. R. R. Co. v. DeMarko",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chicago & W. I. R. R. v. DeMarko",
  "decision_date": "1894-02-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "581",
  "last_page": "582",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 581"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "2 Scam. 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2478210,
        2477939
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/3/0417-02",
        "/ill/3/0417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Scam. 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        6102072,
        6102005
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/5/0296-02",
        "/ill/5/0296-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill. App. 463",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4869983
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/13/0463-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Scam. 55",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2477438
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/3/0055-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5222448
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/44/0443-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. App. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5028653
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/41/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 82",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2420775
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/30/0082-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 127,
    "char_count": 1314,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8836567024566907e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7280134865005643
    },
    "sha256": "b663b6c96690e6c2a5888e20c8676300430a13d283901df7a9e02d3ffd72a4f7",
    "simhash": "1:e06418f9fc231a88",
    "word_count": 236
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:15.137575+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Chicago & W. I. R. R. Co. v. DeMarko."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nIn the common law record of this case we find no error. We can not consider that portion of the transcript sought to be made a record by a bill of exceptions, because the so-called bill of exceptions was not sealed as well as signed by the judge who certified thereto.\nIt is indispensable that a bill of exceptions be signed and sealed by the judge by whom the same is made. Widows and Orphans\u2019 Beneficiary Association v. Powers, 30 Ill. App. 82; Clive v. The Toledo, St. Louis & Kansas R. R. Co., 41 Ill. App. 516; Miller v. Jenkins, 44 Ill. 443; James v. Sprague, 2 Scam. 55; Mason v. Gibson, 13 Ill. App. 463; Morse v. Williams, 4 Scam. 285; Cowhick v. Gunn, 2 Scam. 417.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Osborn & Lynde, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Whitehead & Stoker, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Chicago & W. I. R. R. Co. v. DeMarko.\n1. Bill of Exceptions\u2014Must be Sealed.\u2014It is indispensable that a bill of exceptions be sealed as well as signed by the judge who certifies to the same.\nMemorandum.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. 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.\nOsborn & Lynde, attorneys for appellant.\nWhitehead & Stoker, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0581-01",
  "first_page_order": 577,
  "last_page_order": 578
}