{
  "id": 5193868,
  "name": "William F. Peterson and Paul Radowitz v. John. V. Dugan",
  "name_abbreviation": "Peterson v. Dugan",
  "decision_date": "1896-12-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "633",
  "last_page": "634",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 633"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 151,
    "char_count": 2061,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.503,
    "sha256": "8510c4f2cc9598c8764ff91408decfb84c9682b695b2c7bd0851a75f09729628",
    "simhash": "1:a4a3f991a93c9344",
    "word_count": 369
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William F. Peterson and Paul Radowitz v. John. V. Dugan."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThere is in this case no bill of exceptions. Heither the affidavits nor the copies of the same presented to the court below are before this court.\nIn the roll certified by the clerk, upon the back of what seems to be a copy of an affidavit, we find the following, in figures: A date, whether the 24th or 25th of \u201c Sep., \u201996,\u201d we are unable to determine, the word \u201c approved,\u201d followed by the signature and seal of a judge of the Circuit Court.\nThis paper appears to have been, filed in the Circuit Court September 24, 1896.\nWe also find upon the back of the assignment of errors, the words \u201c Presented in open court the 22d of September, 1896,\u201d followed by the signature and seal of the judge.\nEvidently some one in presenting what was designed for a bill of exceptions, has made a mistake.\nThe order of the Circuit Court refusing to set aside the judgment, is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D. T. Duncombe, attorney for appellants.",
      "Henry M. Shabad, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William F. Peterson and Paul Radowitz v. John. V. Dugan.\n1. Bill of Exceptions\u2014What Does Not Constitute.\u2014In a roll of papers certified by a circuit clerk upon the back of a copy of an affidavit was a date and the word \u201c approved,\u201d followed by the signature and seal of a judge of the Circuit Court, and upon the back of the assignment of errors were the words \u201c presented in open court the 22d of September, 1896,\u201d followed by the signature and seal of the judge. Held that the papers so marked did not constitute a bill of exceptions.\nMotion, to set aside judgment by default. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 28, 1896.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment by confession, and allow the appellant Peterson to come in and plead to the narr. filed in the case.\nJudgment by confession was entered December 19, 1895, against appellant, for $300.25 and $13 costs.\nD. T. Duncombe, attorney for appellants.\nHenry M. Shabad, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0633-01",
  "first_page_order": 631,
  "last_page_order": 632
}
