{
  "id": 868974,
  "name": "John Reid v. F. B. Flanders",
  "name_abbreviation": "Reid v. Flanders",
  "decision_date": "1896-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "106",
  "last_page": "107",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 106"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "92 Ill. 204",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2739857
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/92/0204-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 137,
    "char_count": 1644,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3072453258857949
    },
    "sha256": "8a61bcd27a017ba842fa6f889aa77d0d9b988a4027b7065f898b1c3b552f3115",
    "simhash": "1:9fa21c2552109318",
    "word_count": 280
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:10:11.174453+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Reid v. F. B. Flanders."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion op the , Court.\nThis was an action begun before a justice of the peace to recover upon two orders given for the premium upon a policy of life insurance. There was a judgment for the plaintiff for $200. The defendant appeals.\nAs the bill of exceptions does not show that it contains all the evidence, we can not examine into the merits of the finding of the court below.\nAppellant asked for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. As there had already been two trials, it is a little singular that this newly discovered evidence ivas not found until after the termination of the second hearing.\nThe newly discovered evidence is merely cumulative, and would not be conclusive; the court, therefore, properly refused to set aside the finding and grant a new trial. Laird v. Warren, 92 Ill. 204.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David G. Robertson and Dummer & Maltman, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Parker & Pain, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Reid v. F. B. Flanders.\n1. Bill of Exceptions\u2014 When it Does Not Contain all the Evidence.\u2014When the bill of exceptions does not show that it contains all the evidence, the Appellate Court will not examine into merits of the findings of the court below.\n3. New Trials\u2014Newly Discovered Evidence.\u2014Newly discovered evidence, which is merely cumulative and not conclusive, is not a sufficient ground for a new trial.\nTranscript from a Justice of the Peace.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nAffirmed,\nOpinion filed January 22, 1896.\nDavid G. Robertson and Dummer & Maltman, attorneys for appellant.\nParker & Pain, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0106-01",
  "first_page_order": 102,
  "last_page_order": 103
}