{
  "id": 858505,
  "name": "City of Mt. Vernon v. Elizabeth P. Satterfield",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Mt. Vernon v. Satterfield",
  "decision_date": "1894-03-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "39",
  "last_page": "40",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 Ill. App. 39"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "115 Ill. 566",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2876358
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/115/0566-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ill. 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5202567
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/28/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill. 72",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2573696
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/11/0072-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 4236,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.503,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.719567370958748e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2956782422450112
    },
    "sha256": "41133a9b167f5a3b2a7fff094f302818aebfbe7712f1ae8c6041d3c6e25d7958",
    "simhash": "1:a68060225a8b1fba",
    "word_count": 747
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:00.879097+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Mt. Vernon v. Elizabeth P. Satterfield."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Sample\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee recovered a judgment of $300 damages for an injury sustained by falling on a defective sidewalk. That the appellee was quite badly hurt is not disputed. That the walk was defective and had been so for such a length of time as to constitute notice to appellant, we think is clearly sustained by the evidence. The principal point made by appellant is chat the appellee did not exercise due care.\nThe court properly instructed the jury on this question, which found against the appellant.\nThe court and jury had the witnesses before them, and without the finding is clearly against the evidence, an appellate court is not disposed to disturb a verdict. In this case, however, we are precluded from a consideration of that question.\nThe record shows that a written motion for a new trial was not filed until the day after the record motion had been overruled. \"Unless there is a motion for new trial and that motion is preserved in the bill of exceptions, and exception taken and preserved to the action of the court thereon, this court can not consider errors assigned that relate to the overruling of such motion. Dickhut v. Durrell, 11 Ill. 72; Boyle v. Levings, 28 Ill. 314; Graham et al. v. People, 115 Ill. 566.\nThe bill of exceptions shows that exception was taken to the judgment of the court on the verdict, but does not show that exception was taken to the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial. The judgment will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Sample"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Norman H. Moss, attorney for appellant.",
      "G. B. Leonard, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Mt. Vernon v. Elizabeth P. Satterfield.\n1. Practice\u2014Motion for a New Trial\u2014Tobe Preserved in the Bill of Exceptions.\u2014Unless there is a motion for a new trial, and that motion is preserved in the bill of exceptions and an exception taken and preserved to the action of the court thereon, the Appellate Court can not consider errors assigned that relate to the overruling of such motion.\n3. Practice\u2014Exceptions to Overruling Motion for a Neiu Trial.\u2014 Where the bill of exceptions shows that exception was taken to the judgment of the court on the verdict but does not show that exception was taken to the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial, such action can not be assigned for error.\nMemorandum.\u2014Action for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County; the Hon. Edmund D. Youngblood, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the August term, 1893 and affirmed.\nOpinion filed March 23, 1894.\nThe statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nInstructions on the exercise of due care, referred to in the opinion:\n(1.) For the plaintiff. The court instructs the jury that the defendant is bound, in law, to use all reasonable care to keep its sidewalks in a safe condition for travel, and if it fails to do so, it is liable for injuries sustained in consequence of such neglect; provided the person injured is using reasonable care and caution for his or her own safety at the time of the injury; and the fact that the plaintiff may have in some way contributed to the injury sustained by him or herself will not prevent a recovery, if by ordinary care he or she could not have avoided the consequence to herself by the defendant\u2019s negligence.\n(2.) For the defendant. The jury are instructed that in this case the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the alleged injury was caused by a defect in the sidewalk, as charged in the declaration; and that the city had notice of such defective condition, for such a length of time as, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, the defect could have been discovered, and time had, before the alleged accident occurred, to repair the walk, and that at the time of the alleged injury, the plaintiff used due care and diligence for her own safety in passing over said walk; and unless you believe, from a preponderance of the evidence, that the accident did occur as charged, and that the city had actual or constructive notice of the defect in the sidewalk, if there was any, and that the plaintiff exercised due care and diligence for her own safety, you should find the defendant not guilty.\nNorman H. Moss, attorney for appellant.\nG. B. Leonard, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0039-01",
  "first_page_order": 35,
  "last_page_order": 36
}
