{
  "id": 5172308,
  "name": "S. P. Richards and Lizzie M. Richards v. The John Spry Lumber Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Richards v. John Spry Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1896-05-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "347",
  "last_page": "349",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 347"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. App. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5169757
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/63/0259-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 2744,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3503244502674704e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6333286226339837
    },
    "sha256": "8db4a21f98a6cd0d69dfe58b308f0388f3466698aa536e6057b7cb1b6f3e0464",
    "simhash": "1:63593b85898d11b8",
    "word_count": 468
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. P. Richards and Lizzie M. Richards v. The John Spry Lumber Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was a petition for \u00e1 mechanic\u2019s lien.\nHrs. Lizzie H. Bichar\u00e1s, the owner of the property on which a lien was claimed, authorized her husband to make a contract with J. J. White & Co., to repair the same.\nAnswers to the petition having been filed and issue joined, the cause was referred to a master. We infer from objections filed by appellants to the master\u2019s report, that the master reported that appellee was entitled to a lien upon the premises for the sum of $1,300.58.\nNo abstract of the master\u2019s report has been made; only objections to it are shown by the abstract.\nIt is impossible, from an examination of this abstract, to say that the objections should have been sustained, even if they had been presented to the court below in such manner as is required. The proper practice is described in McMannomy v. Walker, 63 Ill. App. 259.\nThe court rendered a decree giving appellant a lien upon the premises of appellant Lizzie Bichar\u00e1s for $1,300.58.\nThe abstract as- to the contents of the master\u2019s report contains only the following:\n\u201c Exceptions to the master\u2019s report filed November 11, 1895, beginning with the formal heading and closed with the formal ending required in a bill of exceptions, and the body of the exceptions, are in the same language and figures as those of the body of the objections filed before the master, and are given in this abstract of evidence of the pages of certified evidence as being from pages 83 to 113 inclusive, these exceptions being given in the certificate of evidence from the Circuit Court, being identical on pages 459 to 484, inclusive.\u201d\nIt is impossible to determine from this what the master\u2019s report was. We can not, for the purpose of reversing the decree of the Circuit Court, assume that the objections correctly state the contents of the master\u2019s report, even if they set it forth, which they do not.\nAppellee has in his brief called attention to the insufficiency of the abstract, and insisted that the rules of this court in respect to abstracts be enforced. We have frequently passed upon this matter, and can not do otherwise than affirm the decree for want of a sufficient abstract.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wight & Whitney, attorneys for appellants.",
      "G. W. Stanford, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. P. Richards and Lizzie M. Richards v. The John Spry Lumber Company.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Insufficient Abstracts.\u2014An abstract which only shows that objections to a master\u2019s report were taken, without showing what the report was, is insufficient.\nBill for Mechanic\u2019s Lien.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Murray F. Tuley, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 14, 1896.\nWight & Whitney, attorneys for appellants.\nG. W. Stanford, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0347-01",
  "first_page_order": 345,
  "last_page_order": 347
}