{
  "id": 5098976,
  "name": "Louis A. Roy and E. Raphael Nourse v. James B. Galloway, Francis O. Lyman and James Patton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roy v. Galloway",
  "decision_date": "1894-04-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "610",
  "last_page": "611",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 610"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5100039
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/54/0157-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill. App. 534",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5123281
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/50/0534-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 2300,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.958875016565372e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5019591875819788
    },
    "sha256": "ad65150d391d3961ef318c0b2fec3c31b93fd72cdcdff2cc8ebc4c735e651391",
    "simhash": "1:96436342502b3880",
    "word_count": 412
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Louis A. Roy and E. Raphael Nourse v. James B. Galloway, Francis O. Lyman and James Patton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe bill of exceptions recites: \u201c Mr. Traub: I offer these two documents in evidence. The Court: I will let the receipt in subject to your motion to strike it out. (Which ruling by the court was duly excepted to by counsel for defendants.) (Here insert 1 Exhibits A and B.\u2019)\u201d A little above those recitals there is stuck on to the margin of the page with a stout brass pin, a check and receipt with \u201cExhibit A \u201d on the one and \u201c Exhibit B \u201d on the other. A postal card is \u201c Exhibit D \u201d similarly referred to and pinned on.\nThe next recital as to an exhibit is: \u201c The plat referred to was offered in evidence by plaintiff\u2019s counsel, and marked \u2018Exhibit C \u2019 (here insert);\u201d and a little way down the page a paper with \u201c Exhibit O \u201d on it, as we can see within the folds, is stuck on with two pins. We do not know what that paper is, as the pins confine it in folds.\nSuppose these pins get loose, or it should be charged that the exhibits have been changed, how could we determine what is the record ? Charles v. Remick, 50 Ill. App. 534.\nAside from this, the words of reference in the text of the bill are not sufficient to identify the documents. Page v. Northwestern Brg. Co., 54 Ill. App. 157.\nThere is no such showing of the proceedings below as will warrant a review here. The abstract shows no instruction, reasons for a new trial, or exception to anything, except as above quoted. We have many times decided that mere indexing does not make an abstract.\nAltogether there is too much labor saved in presenting the case, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hurley & Koerner, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Adolph Traub, attorney for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Louis A. Roy and E. Raphael Nourse v. James B. Galloway, Francis O. Lyman and James Patton.\n1. Bills of Exceptions\u2014Skeleton Forms\u2014Exhibits.\u2014If it is desired to incorporate an exhibit into the record, it must be properly made a part of the bill of exceptions. Using the forms (here insert exhibits, etc.) and fastening the exhibits to the margin of the sheet with pins, is not sufficient.\nMemorandum.\u2014Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed April 30, 1894.\nThe opinion states the case.\nHurley & Koerner, attorneys for appellants.\nAdolph Traub, attorney for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0610-01",
  "first_page_order": 608,
  "last_page_order": 609
}