{
  "id": 5156838,
  "name": "Thomas B. Smith v. Charles H. Tenney",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Tenney",
  "decision_date": "1895-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "442",
  "last_page": "443",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 442"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 151,
    "char_count": 1689,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4975956836136062e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6649841361407557
    },
    "sha256": "111d6dee975bb95341734cd232d47062fe3c9a4b598abd71953da6efae351f32",
    "simhash": "1:f5d91ba2f23ba6e8",
    "word_count": 302
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:36.351146+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas B. Smith v. Charles H. Tenney."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion op the Court.\nThis is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court appointing a receiver. The record was filed here May 1,1895. Such appeal must be taken within thirty, and perfected here within sixty days after the entry of the order appealed from, and when the record is filed here the case is to be at once docketed and \u201cready for hearing under the rules\u201d of this court. Act of June 14, 1887.\nBule 25 requires the abstract and brief of an appellant in a case where the record has been filed not less than twenty days before the first day of the term, to be filed at least fire days before that dajq and a failure to comply with the rule is cause for a dismissal of the appeal unless excused upon circumstances.\nThe first day of this term was October 1, 1895. \u00a1No abstract or brief was filed. The only excuse offered is that appellant\u2019s solicitor had so much to do during the last half of September.\nOn the appellee\u2019s motion the appeal is dismissed, with twenty-fire dollars solicitor\u2019s fee allowed to the appellee, to be taxed as part of the costs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moses, Pam & Kennedy, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Mewman & Korthrup, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas B. Smith v. Charles H. Tenney.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Failure to File Abstracts and Briefs\u2014Excuse.\u2014The fact that an attorney had \u201c so much to do,\u201d is not a sufficient excuse for his failure to file his abstracts and briefs as required by the rules of the court.\nOrder Appointing a Receiver.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nDismissed for a failure to comply with the rules, etc.\nMoses, Pam & Kennedy, attorneys for appellant.\nMewman & Korthrup, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0442-01",
  "first_page_order": 440,
  "last_page_order": 441
}