{ "id": 5170196, "name": "Continental Investment & Loan Society v. August Schubnell", "name_abbreviation": "Continental Investment & Loan Society v. Schubnell", "decision_date": "1896-03-31", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "379", "last_page": "380", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "63 Ill. App. 379" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "148 Ill. 490", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3060831 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/148/0490-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ill. App. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5153527 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/59/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Ill. App. 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5017584 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/39/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ill. App. 452", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 859888 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/37/0452-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 Ill. 120", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 828301 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/111/0120-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 Ill. 654", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2865088 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/113/0654-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 Ill. 566", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2876358 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/115/0566-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 Ill. 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 12128585 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/130/0457-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 233, "char_count": 3192, "ocr_confidence": 0.533, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1559747305730952 }, "sha256": "0520065d22451cd20481eb2cd8ea0f5be628ca01ae5ad6498d588b2082cc8fbc", "simhash": "1:97ca783d70ce2828", "word_count": 575 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:49.987215+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Continental Investment & Loan Society v. August Schubnell." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis writ is prosecuted to obtain the reversal of a judgment in favor of the defendant in error, recovered in a suit brought for a balance claimed to be due upon the withdrawal by the defendant in error from membership in the plaintiff society.\nThe proof showed that the defendant in error became a member of the society and paid, upon the shares of stock for which he subscribed, the sum of \u00a7306, in monthly installments of \u00a718 each, and borrowed from the society the sum of $200. The judgment was for the difference between the amount he borrowed and the sum he paid in.\nSome interesting questions of law are contained in the record, which might be decided in favor of the plaintiff in error had they been properly saved by the record brought to us. But following the settled doctrine, we can not disturb the judgment for such errors of law, if they exist; and it is with trifling regret that we are\" constrained to apply the doctrine where, as here, the judgment is so nearly an equitable one.\nThe bill of exceptions contains no mention of a motion for a new trial or the action of the court taken thereon.\nThe ruling is uniform that the motion for a new trial and the ruling of the court thereon, and the exceptions, if any are taken, must be preserved by bill of exceptions; and the fact that the clerk has seen fit to copy into the transcript, outside of the bill of exceptions, a document which purports to be a motion for a new trial, will not avail against the lack of the motion and the ruling thereon, and exceptions thereto, appearing in the bill of exceptions. Harris v. The People, 130 Ill. 457; Graham v. The People, 115 Ill. 566; James v. Dexter, 113 Ill. 654; Tarble v. The People, 111 Ill. 120; Foreman v. Johnson, 37 Ill. App. 452; Burnett v. Snapp, 39 Ill. App. 237.\nBut had the motion for a new trial been properly preserved, there would have arisen another fatal objection in matter of form, to the consideration of the questions of law that have been argued.\nTo the refusal by the court to give five asked instructions and two special findings of fact, but a single exception, in gross, was taken. Exceptions can not be taken in that way. Flaningham v. Hogue, 59 Ill. App. 315; E. St. L. Electric Co. v. Cauley, 148 Ill. 490.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Shepard" } ], "attorneys": [ "A. B. Davis, Jr., attorney for plaintiff in error; Graham Harris, of counsel.", "No appearance for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Continental Investment & Loan Society v. August Schubnell.\n1. Motion foe a New Trial\u2014Must be Preserved in a Bill of Exceptions. \u2014A motion for a new trial, and the ruling of the court thereon, and the exceptions, if any are taken, must be preserved by a bill of exceptions. The fact that the clerk, in making up the transcript, copies the motion into the record, outside of the bill of exceptions, will not avail.\n3. Practice\u2014Exceptions in Gross.\u2014Exceptions in the court below can not be taken in gross.\nAssumpsit, for balance due withdrawing stockholder. Error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Gibbons, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 31, 1896.\nA. B. Davis, Jr., attorney for plaintiff in error; Graham Harris, of counsel.\nNo appearance for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0379-01", "first_page_order": 375, "last_page_order": 376 }