{
  "id": 4745795,
  "name": "Johnson Millard v. John Cooper",
  "name_abbreviation": "Millard v. Cooper",
  "decision_date": "1880-06-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "420",
  "last_page": "421",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 Ill. App. 420"
    }
  ],
  "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. 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5276472
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/54/0180-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Scam. 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2476920
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/3/0291-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. 50",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5313934
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/82/0050-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. 453",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2610648
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/63/0453-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5249909
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/27/0247-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. 287",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        823968
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/78/0287-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2395,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.512,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.518461695170957e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2827695745968201
    },
    "sha256": "60f36f1270b1b33ec8f5f152d399aace920dde270600c48dfb38e80eca3d819b",
    "simhash": "1:57638df7da217b9a",
    "word_count": 418
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:27.659948+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Johnson Millard v. John Cooper."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pleasants, J.\nThis was a trial de novo, upon appeal from an order of the county court, refusing to admit to probate the alleged nuncupative will of the deceased; and upon the issue there made the jury found it \u201c to be her last will and testament.\u201d\nA motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment thereupon entered against the contestants for all the costs, from which one of them took this appeal.\nUpon the record brought here we cannot consider the questions argued as to the instructions given and refused, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding, for the reason that the judgment entered does not involve them. It does not determine the validity or invalidity of the alleged will, or the claim of proponents to have it probated, nor reverse or affirm the order of the county court, but is for costs only. Costs are incidental to the determination of some other right or question, but here there is none.\nThe 21st section of Chap. 33, of the Revised Statutes, provides that \u201c in all cases of appeal from the decision of a county court in matters of probate, the costs shall be in the discretion of the appellate court; \u201d but this implies that the subject-matter of the decision appealed from shall be disposed of.\nThe judgment for costs only is inappropriate to the issue made and found, and therefore erroneous. Stephens on Pl. marg. p. 154.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pleasants, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. W. S. Searls, for appellant;",
      "Mr. E. M. Haines, for appellee;"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Johnson Millard v. John Cooper.\nPractice \u2014 Judgment for costs only. \u2014 Costs are incidental to the determination of some other right or question. So, where the judgment of the court below, upon the question of the validity of a nuncupative will, neither reversed or affirmed the order of the county court, but was for costs only, it is inappropriate to the issue made and found, and therefore erroneous.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Lake county; the Hon. C. W. Upton, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed June 17, 1880.\nMr. W. S. Searls, for appellant;\nas to the competency of the evidence to establish a nuncupative will, cited Morgan v. Stevens, 78 Ill. 287; Arnett v. Arnett, 27 Ill. 247; Wier v. Chidester, 63 Ill. 453; Harrington v. Stees, 82 Ill. 50.\nThe judgment is erroneous: Walker v. Walker, 2 Scam. 291; Foltz v. Stevens, 54 Ill. 180.\nMr. E. M. Haines, for appellee;\nthat the evidence was sufficient to establish the will, cited Weir v. Chidester, 63 Ill. 453; Harrington v. Stees, 82 Ill. 50."
  },
  "file_name": "0420-01",
  "first_page_order": 418,
  "last_page_order": 419
}