{
  "id": 5098745,
  "name": "Louis Daube v. Walter Tennison, by Next Friend",
  "name_abbreviation": "Daube v. Tennison",
  "decision_date": "1894-07-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "290",
  "last_page": "291",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 290"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 1604,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5195912966354409
    },
    "sha256": "c887ab5f7b0c3e22c4e28e09318d9681cf15cebb5817d46373de066f132a2cdb",
    "simhash": "1:7eb4694100809de0",
    "word_count": 277
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Louis Daube v. Walter Tennison, by Next Friend."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nWe are urged to set aside the judgment entered in this case, because, as is insisted, the verdict of the jury is against the evidence. A verdict for the defendant might have properly been rendered.\nTwo juries have found for the plaintiff, and it is likely a third would do the same.\nWe can not say that there was in this case any such preponderance of evidence against the conclusion arrived at by the jury that the defendant is entitled to a new trial.\nThe trial judge required that from the verdict a remittitur of $500 be made. The judgment has, after this evidence of careful consideration, been approved by him.\nAnother reason for affirming the judgment in this case, is that the original bill of exceptions is brought here under a stipulation that it may be inserted in the record, not, as the statute provides, may be inserted in the transcript of the record.\nThe judgment will therefore be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. M. Shaffner, attorney for appellant.",
      "E. W. Adkinson, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Louis Daube v. Walter Tennison, by Next Friend.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Bill of Exceptions\u2014Transcript of the Record.\u2014Where the original bill of exceptions is brought to the Appellate Court under a stipulation that it may be inserted in the record, instead of in the transcript of the record as the statute requires, the court will not review matters appearing in it.\nMemorandum.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1894.\nB. M. Shaffner, attorney for appellant.\nE. W. Adkinson, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0290-01",
  "first_page_order": 288,
  "last_page_order": 289
}