{ "id": 5100039, "name": "Eliza A. Page v. Northwestern Brewing Co.", "name_abbreviation": "Page v. Northwestern Brewing Co.", "decision_date": "1894-04-19", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "157", "last_page": "159", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "54 Ill. App. 157" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "37 Ill. App. 484", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 859936 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/37/0484-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ill. App. 526", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5068307 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/44/0526-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Ind. App. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind. App.", "case_ids": [ 4703300 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ind-app/4/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ill. App. 358", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5063856 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/44/0358-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 Ill. App. 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "3 Scam. 5", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2469923 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/4/0005-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 360", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5440519 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/137/0360-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ill. App. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4990422 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/33/0622-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ill. App. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5063126 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/44/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 Ill. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3065672 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/146/0394-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 307, "char_count": 4145, "ocr_confidence": 0.489, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.412121717113371e-07, "percentile": 0.8780469440496338 }, "sha256": "a56b2f618e405d09b2944cf22daeae33305dc130644f9ca46b6c9eed039a5762", "simhash": "1:80b44523147130a4", "word_count": 729 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Eliza A. Page v. Northwestern Brewing Co." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis case is governed by Spangenberg v. Charles, 44 Ill. App. 526.\nThe bill of exceptions recites, \u201c I offer this lease in evidence. The same was thereupon received in evidence, and marked Exhibit. A.\u201d \u201c I offer these receipts in evidence, being numbers 134 and 135, each dated March 25, 1893, each for the sum of $50, and the same were therefore received in evidence and marked defendant\u2019s Exhibits A and B.\u201d Similar language is used as to other exhibits down to \u201c I.\u201d\nAt the close of the evidence is inserted: \u201c Which was all the evidence offered or received on said hearing.\u201d Then follow some propositions of law and the action upon them. Then without further -words of identity, next preceding the finding by the court\u2014there being no jury\u2014are inserted several sheets, corresponding in description with the recitals in the bill. It is a plausible, indeed a reasonable, inference, that these sheets are the exhibits referred to by the bill; but there is no statement in the bill that they are in fact the same. Whatever against the interest of the plaintiff in error may be true, and not deny the statements of the bill, is to be presumed to be true. Matson v. Lally, 37 Ill. App. 484.\nIt is upon this doctrine that bills of exceptions, in cases where this court is asked to review findings or verdicts upon the evidence, must state that they contain all the evidence; or if the refusal of instructions is complained of, that the bills must state that they contain all that were given.\nThe judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Gary" }, { "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\non petition for rehearing.\nSince the original opinion was filed the appellant applied for leave to file an addition to the record from the Circuit Court, nunc fro tunc.\nThe \u201c tunc \u201d was denied, but if it had been granted the addition is a mere nullity, being an order, entered upon the record below, that certain amendments be made to the bill of exceptions.\nA bill of exceptions can not be made by an order, however specific, entered by the clerk upon the record, and it logically follows that no addition to a bill can be thus made. Wright v. Griffey, 146 Ill. 394; S. C., 44 Ill. App. 115.\nWithout the exhibits the propositions of law are not shown to have any relevancy to the case, and in the abstract it does not appear that the refusal of them was excepted to. Parry v. Arnold, 33 Ill. App. 622.\n\u201c The appellant\u2019s abstract shows no such objection or exception, and said abstract must, as against the appellant, be deemed to be sufficiently full and accurate to present all the errors upon which it now relies.\u201d Chi., Peo. & St. L. Co. v. Wolf, 137 Ill. 360-4.\nThe appellant in the petition for rehearing, regards our concession of \u201c a reasonable inference \u201d as an acknowledgment'that the bill is certain \u201c to a certain intent in general \u201d in the language of the books, and therefore that it stands the test 6\u00ed as a pleading of the party \u201d laid down in Rogers v. Hall, 3 Scam. 5; but pleadings \u201c must advance their positions of fact in an absolute form, and not leave them to be collected by inference and argument only.\u201d Stephen\u2019s Pleadings, 384.\nAn inference, not irresistible, is but conjecture more or less probable, and is no more reasonable here than in Stock Quotation, etc., v. Board of Trade, 144 Ill. App. 370, S. C., 44 Ill. App. 358, though the bill is nearer the mark here than there.\nGlass v. Murphy, 4 Ind. App. 530, as to exhibits to code pleadings, is not much authority for the frame of bills of exceptions.\nThe petition must be denied.", "type": "rehearing", "author": "Mr. Justice Gary" } ], "attorneys": [ "Stirlen & King, attorneys for the plaintiff in error.", "Lackner & Butz, attorneys for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Eliza A. Page v. Northwestern Brewing Co.\n1. Bills of Exceptions\u2014Exhibits in Evidence.\u2014To make exhibits offered in evidence a part of the record, they must be incorporated into the bill of exceptions with proper words of identification.\nMemorandum.\u2014Error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Thomas Gr. Windes, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed April 19, 1894.\nOpinion on rehearing filed May 8, 1894.\nThe opinion states the case.\nStirlen & King, attorneys for the plaintiff in error.\nLackner & Butz, attorneys for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0157-01", "first_page_order": 155, "last_page_order": 157 }