{ "id": 5102220, "name": "Frank N. Gage v. George W. Houts", "name_abbreviation": "Gage v. Houts", "decision_date": "1894-04-30", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "231", "last_page": "233", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "54 Ill. App. 231" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "51 Ill. App 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5111073 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/51/0289-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 268, "char_count": 4524, "ocr_confidence": 0.478, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1553445780043547 }, "sha256": "e069c53a22f69f37a2972a1ee90febeb6cbec29c26a3c6db22ce43d8b6b9ecb6", "simhash": "1:b3b18bc070e21f08", "word_count": 790 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Frank N. Gage v. George W. Houts." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nOn an appeal by the appellant to the Circuit Court, from a judgment recovered against him by the appellee in a suit before a justice of the peace, judgment was again rendered against the appellant, and this appeal is from that judgment.\nThe suit was to recover back four small sums of money paid by appellee under a contract for the purchase of a lot of land, entered into by the appellee during his minority.\nQuestion is made as to the admissibility in evidence, over the objection of appellant, of certain paper writings, purporting to be signed in the name of appellant by an agent, without proof of the authority of the agent.\nBut we may not inquire into the question, for there is before us no bill of exceptions to which we may look to ascertain what was there proved.\nThe certificate of the circuit clerk to the transcript of the record is, that what he certifies to is a true transcript of the record except the bill of exceptions, the original of which is incorporated into the record by stipulation of parties.\nIt is only by virtue of the statute (Sec. 68, Chap. 53, entitled Tees and Salaries), that, when the parties so agree, the original bill of exceptions, instead of a copy, may be incorporated into the transcript of the record for the Appellate or Supreme Court.\nThe clerk\u2019s certificate of the fact of such an agreement, if it were so expressed, is, and could be, no evidence of it. Had such an agreement been embodied in the bill of exceptions, and thereby have borne the stamp of authenticity afforded by the signature of the trial judge, the requirements of the statute would have been fully met.\nOr had there been a separate stipulation, evidencing such an agreement, as is usually done, it would be sufficient.\nWhere, as here, no such agreement is embodied in the bill of exceptions, \"we will, as in duty bound, look elsewhere in the transcript to find, if we can, the agreement, as evidenced by the stipulation referred to by the clerk.\nSo looking in this case, we do find a stipulation entitled in the suit of Houts v. Gage, in the Circuit Court, in words and figures as follows:\n\u201c It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto and their respective attorneys that the original bill of exceptions may be incorporated in the record in said cause in lieu, of a copy thereof.\n(Signed) Thomas W. Prtndiville,\nPlaintiff\u2019s Attorney.\nHewman & Horthrup and\nS. O. Levinson,\nDefendant\u2019s Attorneys.\u201d\nBut we find no other stipulation touching the bill of exceptions.\nHo one looking at that stipulation can find anything within it indicating that an appeal to this court, or any other, was in the contemplation of the parties to it.\nIt is a mere stipulation that the original bill of exceptions should be a part of the record of the cause as it stood in the Circuit Court, and nothing more.\nWe can not, without forcing upon one or the other of the parties to it, an interpretation which may not have been within his intention, give to that stipulation an effect not at all within its very plain wording.\nThis court has repeatedly held that such a stipulation is no compliance with the statute. Overman v. Consolidated Coal Company, 51 Ill. App 289, and cases there referred to.\nWe must, therefore, presume that the Circuit Court had before it ample evidence to sustain its judgment, tad, for the same reason, we must presume that the cause ivas properly placed and heard upon the short cause calendar.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard" } ], "attorneys": [ "\u2022 Newman & Northrup and S. O. Levinson, attorneys for appellant.", "Thomas W. Prindiville, attorney for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Frank N. Gage v. George W. Houts.\n1. Bill of Exceptions\u2014Agreement To Have the Original Incorporated in the Transcript.\u2014An agreement in the words and figures following, \u201c It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto, and their respective attorneys, that the original bill of exceptions may be incorporated in the record in said cause in lieu of a copy thereof,\u201d is a mere stipulation that the original bill of exceptions shall be a part of the record of the cause as it stood in the Circuit Court and is not a compliance with the statute. Sec. 68, Chap. 53, entitled Fees and Salaries.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit for money had and received. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Gibbons, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed April 30, 1894.\nThe opinion states the case.\n\u2022 Newman & Northrup and S. O. Levinson, attorneys for appellant.\nThomas W. Prindiville, attorney for appellee." }, "file_name": "0231-01", "first_page_order": 229, "last_page_order": 231 }