{
  "id": 5174927,
  "name": "The Hammill Fire Escape Company v. John Davis et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hammill Fire Escape Co. v. Davis",
  "decision_date": "1896-06-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "555",
  "last_page": "557",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 555"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. App. 144",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4985843
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/33/0144-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 252,
    "char_count": 3069,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.561,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15601064000256384
    },
    "sha256": "d7ef2fa8fbb39528569811cf2514d7e0ba07f6429bc7061efc284f149e1cca0a",
    "simhash": "1:9281dc4a1c788fcc",
    "word_count": 536
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Hammill Fire Escape Company v. John Davis et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThese parties during the years 1886-7-8, were in such relations with each other that, as the brief of the appellant states it, \u201c the two businesses were consolidated.\u201d\nThe abstract of the pleadings is \u201c declaration, narr. and common counts; \u201d \u201c plea of non assumpsit; \u201d and we infer that the appellees sued the appellant in assumpsit. But we are not informed by the abstract what the appellees claimed.\nThe abstract does state, \u201c 36-44,\u201d books offered in evidence as to the entries testified to by witness, except as to the price. We understand \u201c 36-44 \u201d to refer to nine consecutive pages of the record.\nblot an exception as to admission or rejection of evidence or giving or refusing instructions is alluded to in the brief of the appellant, except by way of recital, and no complaint is made of anything in those particulars.\nThe whole complaint is that the court did not' grant a new trial because of insufficient evidence to justify the verdict, varied a little by a statement that part of the verdict is contrary to the instructions of the court.\nTo determine whether that complaint is well founded, we are expected to review one hundred and fourteen record pages of oral testimony, without knowledge of the contents of nine record pages of evidence from books. . Any conclusion we might reach would be as likely to be wrong as right. The dealings through the years mentioned were many; including a good deal of exchanging of checks. The circuit judge, fresh from hearing the witnesses through a three days trial, denied the motion for a new trial, and from the abstract we can not tell whether he was right or wrong. We can not know what items were claimed by the appellees. There is no bill of particulars, and what the books may have proved is not shown.\nThe principal contest seems to have been about an item of $1,000 for patterns which was the subject of much conflicting and irreconcilable testimony. It was for the jury to say which was true. The rest of the verdict seems to have been for what was shown by the books, and to have been contrary to the instruction of the court as to the sufficiency of the proof; but if the court, on motion for a new trial, was convinced that the jury took a more correct view, the motion for a new trial was properly denied. Koerper v. Jung, 33 Ill. App. 144; Kingv. Poole, Cases Temp. Harwd. 23; Van Vacter v. Brewster, 1 S. & M. (Miss.) 400.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Weigley & Eastman, attorneys for appellant.",
      "McMurdy & Job, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Hammill Fire Escape Company v. John Davis et al.\n1, Appellate Court Practice\u2014What the Abstract Must Show.\u2014 Where the trial judge hears the witnesses, and denies a motion for a new trial, the burden is upon the unsuccessful party to show by his abstract of the record that the ruling of the trial judge was wrong.\nAssumpsit.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Coot County; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 11, 1896.\nWeigley & Eastman, attorneys for appellant.\nMcMurdy & Job, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0555-01",
  "first_page_order": 553,
  "last_page_order": 555
}
