{
  "id": 5091023,
  "name": "Samuel B. Walker v. S. D. Pratt and Lucy B. Pratt",
  "name_abbreviation": "Walker v. Pratt",
  "decision_date": "1894-11-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "297",
  "last_page": "297",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 Ill. App. 297"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "132 Ill. 492",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5418941
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/132/0492-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 Ill. 546",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5471145
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/150/0546-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 Ill. 430",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2739495
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/92/0430-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1802,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1552746897599049
    },
    "sha256": "547846d6c40a2958097de13f0d0cd78c2106b880ed321e5d1193a6ba5041369f",
    "simhash": "1:f3a3976670279708",
    "word_count": 303
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:31.699098+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel B. Walker v. S. D. Pratt and Lucy B. Pratt."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nOn the original submission of this case we followed the many decisions we have made, that a stipulation, that a bill of exceptions might be incorporated in the record, was not sufficient to bring it into the transcript.\nWe had followed the old rule repeated in Potter v. Peeples, 92 Ill. 430-6, that \u201c the naming of one thing is the exclusion of others.\u201d Perhaps we had not given sufficient weight to the acquiescence of the appellee in treating the bill of exceptions as part of the transcript, and thereby, independently of the stipulation, being evidence of an agreement that the bill of exceptions should be incorporated in the transcript.\nThe Supreme Court has lately held, Lake Shore, etc., Ry. v. Hessions, 150 Ill. 546, that the stipulation to incorporate in the record is warrant for incorporation in the transcript, and we must follow. But the appellant is no better off than before. There is no assignment of errors upon or attached to the record, and therefore we can not review the case, and the appeal is dismissed. Lancaster v. Waukegan and S. W. Ry., 132 Ill. 492.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Carpenter Bros., attorneys for appellant.",
      "McCracken, Trainor & Cross, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel B. Walker v. S. D. Pratt and Lucy B. Pratt.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014 Stipulations as to Transcripts.\u2014 A stipulation to incorporate a bill of exceptions in the transcript of the record is the warrant for such incorporation.\n2. Same\u2014Assignment of Errors.\u2014Where there is no assignment of errors upon, or attached to the record, the court can not review the case.\nMemorandum.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Thomas G-. Windes, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894. Appeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed November 12, 1894.\nCarpenter Bros., attorneys for appellant.\nMcCracken, Trainor & Cross, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0297-01",
  "first_page_order": 293,
  "last_page_order": 293
}