{
  "id": 5101208,
  "name": "Ballington Booth v. Charles A. Gaither; Charles C. Lamos v. B. D. Marks",
  "name_abbreviation": "Booth v. Marks",
  "decision_date": "1894-07-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "275",
  "last_page": "275",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 275"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 111,
    "char_count": 1399,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "sha256": "434b7aa9a329dd7264289ac25019bb36c47373fafea10596f60eb0567daa4938",
    "simhash": "1:5990eb0251323418",
    "word_count": 239
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ballington Booth v. Charles A. Gaither. Charles C. Lamos v. B. D. Marks."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe errors said to exist in the record of each of these cases are alleged to arise out of the evidence adduced upon the trial.\nIn each, the original instead of a copy of the bill of exceptions is certified here under a stipulation, which is that the bill of exceptions may be made a part of the record. Such a stipulation accomplishes nothing. The bill of exceptions is a part of the record without stipulation.\nWe have so often, called attention to the statute under which the original of a bill of exceptions may be inserted in the transcript of the record instead of a copy, that further reference thereto seems useless. The respective judgments are affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles E. Pope, attorney for Ballington Booth.",
      "Thornton & Chancellor, attorneys for Charles A. Gaither.",
      "Dahms, Langworthy & Poppenhusen, attorneys for Charles C. Lamos.",
      "Wm. C. Hoyer and. Chas. E. Reeve, attorneys for B. D. Harks."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ballington Booth v. Charles A. Gaither. Charles C. Lamos v. B. D. Marks.\n1. Record\u2014Stipulation as to Bill of Exceptions.\u2014A stipulation that the bill of exception smay be made a part of the record accomplishes nothing; the bill of exceptions is a part of the record without a stipulation.\nMemorandum.\u2014Appeals from the Superior and Circuit Courts of Cook County.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1894.\nCharles E. Pope, attorney for Ballington Booth.\nThornton & Chancellor, attorneys for Charles A. Gaither.\nDahms, Langworthy & Poppenhusen, attorneys for Charles C. Lamos.\nWm. C. Hoyer and. Chas. E. Reeve, attorneys for B. D. Harks."
  },
  "file_name": "0275-01",
  "first_page_order": 273,
  "last_page_order": 273
}