{ "id": 5092519, "name": "Ira G. Mosher v. David Scofield", "name_abbreviation": "Mosher v. Scofield", "decision_date": "1894-11-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "271", "last_page": "274", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "55 Ill. App. 271" } ], "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. 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5116141 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/51/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 Ill. 9", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5471863 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/150/0009-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 Ill. 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3059374 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/148/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 Ill. 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3060458 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/148/0048-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 Ill. 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3080859 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/144/0370-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ill. 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2594665 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/17/0246-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 Ill. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5427166 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/133/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Ill. 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 6108690 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/5/0575-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 Ill. App. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5029384 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/41/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ill. App. 559", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4943401 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/26/0559-01" ] }, { "cite": "127 Ill. 214", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5411844 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/127/0214-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 Pet. 343", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Pet.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "97 Ill. 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2842683 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/97/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 Ill. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2729859 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/94/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 425907 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/40/0064-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 377, "char_count": 6755, "ocr_confidence": 0.474, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.244165967452665e-07, "percentile": 0.6086262172041691 }, "sha256": "4fd50af639dcd200f824a80b9e77505da179c436fab9beec955d8f382aeea2ec", "simhash": "1:8da3074070a23d9c", "word_count": 1196 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:31.699098+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Ira G. Mosher v. David Scofield." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe bill of exceptions in this record fills pages 21 to 47 inclusive.\nIn that bill when documentary evidence, instructions and motion for new trial are referred to, the language is, \u201c here insert lease;\u201d \u201c here insert instructions for the plaintiff;\u201d \u201chere insert instructions given for the defendant;\u201d \u201chere insert refused instructions;\u201d \u201c here insert reasons filed.\u201d\nNone of the writings are in the bill itself, but copied by the clerk, are, before the bill, what may have been the \u201c reasons,\u201d and after the bill, what may have been the other papers.\nOn such a record we can only affirm the judgment. Legnard v. Rhodes, 51 Ill. App. 477, and a multitude of cases which can -be found by tracing back from that.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Gary" }, { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court upon a Petition for Rehearing.\nIn a petition for rehearing filed in this cause our attention is called to a number of authorities bearing, it is said, upon the practice under which this case was disposed of.\nIt is always an ungracious task to dispose of a cause otherwise than upon its merits. Established rules of procedure must be observed and neither this court nor any other can ignore the existence of forms essential to the orderly and uniform administration of justice.\nIn the case of Brooks v. Bruyn, 40 Ill. 64, by suggestion of the court the parties, to avoid a continuance, were permitted to stipulate that a deed admitted in evidence, but inadvertently copied by the clerk in a portion of the record other than the bill of exceptions, might be considered as a part of the bill of exceptions.\nIn that case, before the cause was heard, a motion was made to continue the same in order that appellee might apply to the court below to correct the bill of exceptions. Eo such motion was made in this case.\nThe case of Garrick v. Chamberlain, 94 Ill. 588, was, as appears from the report of the same cause in 97 Ill. 620, a proceeding in chancery. In chancery practice, unless in cases where an issue is sent to a court of law to be \u00bftried, there is no such thing as a bill of exceptions. Ex parte Story, 12 Pet. 343.\nWhere witnesses are orally examined at the hearing, a certificate of the evidence so heard, may be made by the chancellor. At law it is' necessary, if one is upon appeal, to rely upon errors in the admission or rejection of evidence or its insufficiency, that it be preserved and made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions. In chancery the evidence upon which the cause is heard is a part of the record.\nIn Garrick v. Chamberlain, 94 Ill. 588, what was a part of the record had been written in'the wrong place; what the court did in that case was therefore to disregard such irregularity; the expression \u201c bill of exceptions \u201d was doubtless inadvertently used, certificate of evidence being meant. The judgment in the case at bar was affirmed, not alone because appellant, having filed in writing the \u201c reasons \u201d upon which his motion for a new trial was heard, such \u201c reasons \u201d were not preserved in the bill of exceptions, but also because by the bill itself it appeared that a portion of the evidence upon which the cause was heard, as well as the instructions given and refused, were not in the bill of exceptions; no error appearing in the common law record, this court could not do otherwise than affirm.\nInstructions are in this case certified, here, by the clerk; \u25a0 but that is insufficient. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul, Ry. Co. v. Yando, 127 Ill. 214.\nThe bill of exceptions in the present case and the clerk\u2019s certificate as to instructions is like that in Liverpool, London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Sanders, 26 Ill. App. 559, in whi'ch case the court hold that instructions can be preserved in the record only by embodying them in the bill of exceptions, and that the copying of them by the clerk does not make them a part of the record.\nIt is also urged in the present case that the parties having stipulated that the copy of the lease attached to the appellant\u2019s bill of exceptions is a true copy of the original lease introduced in evidence on the trial of the cause, the copy so brought here shall, upon-the authority of Brooks v. Bruyn, be here considered.\nIn trials at nisiprhcs, evidence is admitted; facts are established; the parties may stipulate as they please as to facts; may agree to use copies instead of originals; for the parties are bringing before the court that which may thereafter become a part of the record. The Appellate is not a nisi prius court; it is vested with appellate jurisdiction only; it can not render binding judgments upon the stipulations of parties as to what the evidence was in the court below; it acts only upon the record of the court from which an appeal is taken.\nThis court passes upon alleged errors of courts, which errors must be shown by their records and can not be made to appear by stipulation of parties. Schwarze v. Speigel, 41 Ill. App. 351; Moore v. Bolin, 5 Ill. 556; Harding v. Brophy, 133 Ill. 39; Crull v. Keever, 17 Ill. 246; Stock Quotation Co. v. Chi. Board of Trade, 144 Ill. 370; Moore v. The People, 148 Ill. 48; Harris v. The People, 148 Ill. 96; East St. Louis Electric Ry. Co. v. Stout, 150 Ill. 9.\nThe petition for rehearing is denied.", "type": "rehearing", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman" } ], "attorneys": [ "Levi Spbague, attorney for appellant.", "M. D. Flaherty, attorney for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Ira G. Mosher v. David Scofield.\n1. Bills of Exception .\u2014Improper Forma\u2014\u201c Here Insert,\u201d etc.\u2014A bill of exceptions in which documentary evidence, instructions, and motion for a new trial are referred to in such language as \u201chere insert,\u201d etc., etc., is insufficient.\n2. Practice\u2014Courts of Review Act upon the Record,of the Court Beloiv.\u2014In the trial courts, evidence is admitted and facts are established; parties may stipulate as they please as to facts; may agree to use copies instead of originals; for the parties are bringing before the court that which may become a part of the record. The Appellate Court is not a nisi prius court; it is vested with appellate jurisdiction only, and can not render binding judgments upon the stipulations of parties as to what the evidence was in the court below; it acts only upon the record of the court from which the appeal is taken.\n3. Same\u2014Province of the Appellate Court.\u2014'The Appellate Courtpasses upon the alleged errors of the courts below, which errors must be shown by their records, and can not be made tp appear by stipulation of the parties.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit. In the Circuit Court of Cook County; on appeal from a justice of the peace; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding. Trial by jury, verdict and judgment for plaintiff; appeal by defendant. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed November 12, 1894.\nLevi Spbague, attorney for appellant.\nM. D. Flaherty, attorney for appellee." }, "file_name": "0271-01", "first_page_order": 267, "last_page_order": 270 }