{
  "id": 5174678,
  "name": "Milford J. Thompson v. Economy Furniture Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. Economy Furniture Co.",
  "decision_date": "1896-04-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "140",
  "last_page": "143",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 140"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. App. 590",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Scam. 6",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5112215
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/51/0305-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 Ill. 607",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5471799
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/150/0607-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Ill. 315",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5232313
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/59/0315-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5081233
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/58/0419-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. 124",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5221990
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/44/0124-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. 197",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5216981
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/41/0197-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        425830,
        425967
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/40/0063-02",
        "/ill/40/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 399",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5115912
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/51/0399-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 Ill. 508",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5444018
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/138/0508-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 339,
    "char_count": 4615,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2269389344706595e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7784544581556685
    },
    "sha256": "b8275e83f7aaf5cd5aab5ba6b8b5b1bd6afb08979b4618530fdc7a713b11d708",
    "simhash": "1:1e4e3c2e2cf88269",
    "word_count": 801
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Milford J. Thompson v. Economy Furniture Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellant filed his abstract March 16th, his brief March 19th, and the brief of the appellee was filed March 24th, all in 1896.\nThe last brief truly quoted from the abstract, as the only exception which it shows that the appellant took in the Circuit Court, this sentence:\n\u201c When the defendant by his counsel entered the motion for new trial, and before the same was reduced to writing, and the reasons for such motion set forth and presented, the court overruled the same and entered judgment. To which defendant then and there duly excepted.\u201d\nThen the appellee holds up what we said in Wabash R. R. v. Smith, 58 Ill. App. 419, that \u201c the abstract must, as against the appellant, be deemed sufficiently full and accurate to present all the errors upon which \u201d the appellant relies.\nIf we enforce our rules in one case we must in all; otherwise we do not administer the law impartially. It is quite possible that if we turned to the record we might find that the appellant did in fact make a motion for a new trial, a fact, if it be one, which the abstract omits to state. Reciting that \u201c when the defendant by his counsel entered the motion for a new trial\u201d is no allegation that such a motion was made.\nSince the appellee filed his brief, a week\u2014at this present writing\u2014has elapsed, and the appellant has not asked to amend or add to his abstract \u201c To which\u201d\u2014to what ? Flaningham v. Hogue, 59 Ill. 315.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nSince the foregoing was written, six days have passed, and the only attention the appellant has given the case is that April 9th he filed a couple of pages of typewriting containing a quotation, as from the opinion of the Supreme Court in Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Ry. v. Walsh, 150 Ill. 607, of language not there; and impressively stating that it \u201c becomes the duty of this court to examine the entire record and determine whether as a matter of law arising from the facts, the judgment was a proper one; \u201d by which it would seem that this court, and the Appellate Courts of the other districts, and the Supreme Court, have evaded their duty in declining to go to records for matters not shown by abstracts, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      },
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\non petition eoe beheabing.\nThis petition is for the purpose of bringing the case before us by a better record and abstract; citing Supreme Lodge K. of H. v. Dolberg, 138 Ill. 508, in which case this court had refused such a petition. The then action of this court was consistent with all its subsequent action upon like premises. Steinfeld v. Taylor, 51 Ill. App. 399, and many cases since.,\nIt was also in accord with the practice of the Supreme Court. Boynton v. Champlin, 40 Ill. 63; Haskin v. Haskin, 41 Ill. 197; McPherson v. Nelson, 44 Ill. 124.\nIn this last case the evil consequences of departing from the practice so established are forcibly stated.\nIn Haskin v. Haskin, the counsel agreed that the omission was not mine,' but by the clerk in copying, yet the Supreme Court would not\u2014as is shown in the note to Boynton v. Champlin\u2014reinstate the case. Petition denied.",
        "type": "rehearing",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thompson & McCaslin, attorneys for appellant.",
      "E. A. Sherburne, attorney for appellee,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Milford J. Thompson v. Economy Furniture Company.\n1. Abstracts\u2014How Considered.\u2014The abstract of the record must, as against the appellant, be deemed sufficiently full and accurate to present all the errors upon which he relies.\nTrespass, de bonis asportatis. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Charles G. Neely, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 27, 1896.\nThompson & McCaslin, attorneys for appellant.\nE. A. Sherburne, attorney for appellee,\ncontended that the appellant has not saved exceptions to the acts or rulings assigned for error. To be sure, there are numerous ejaculatory objections, and exceptions which appear in the record and abstract, in the following form:\n\u201c Objection; overruled; exception.\u201d \u201c Who objected; to what ? Who excepted; to what ? does not appear. This is not sufficient to raise any question in this court. Arcade Co. v. Allen, 51 Ill. App. 305; Rogers v. Hall, 3 Scam. 6.\nMor is any reason stated for the \u201c objection.\u201d Here is a fair sample of all the objections, on page nine of abstract, seventy-nine of record:\n\" Said mortgage introduced in evidence as plaintiff\u2019s Exhibit B.\u201d\n\u201c Objection; overruled; exception.\u201d\nWhat the mortgage was objected to for, whether because of informal acknowledgment, erasure, want of signature or some other reason, is not stated. This is too general for any purpose. Coffeen Coal Co. v. Barry, 56 Ill. App. 590."
  },
  "file_name": "0140-01",
  "first_page_order": 138,
  "last_page_order": 141
}
