{
  "id": 5190518,
  "name": "Geo. M. Chamberlin v. Eugene Cary",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chamberlin v. Cary",
  "decision_date": "1896-12-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "542",
  "last_page": "543",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 542"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 1863,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.454858700363489e-07,
      "percentile": 0.804829934100405
    },
    "sha256": "d2cfb7dc46ce6267468b39ee5d609af6380af25f651ac5d59e11fd4be9fd23a7",
    "simhash": "1:8f6676224e9ecb9c",
    "word_count": 318
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Geo. M. Chamberlin v. Eugene Cary."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nWe are told by the briefs filed in this cause, that the controversy is entirely as to certain pleadings filed in an action of assumpsit.\nThe abstract here filed is as follows:\n\u201c page. The transcript in this case shows the following:\n3-7 1. Declaration filed January 31, 1896. -\n11 2. Summons issued January 31, 1896.\n12 3. Return on summons February 7, 1896.\n12-14 4. Plea and affidavit of defendant filed February 17, 1896.\n15-16 5. Replication of plaintiff filed February 24, 1896.\n16 6. Rule on defendant to rejoin February 25, 1896.\n17 7. Demurrer on replication filed March 3,1896.\n18 8. Ruling of the court sustaining demurrer, carrying back to plea and requiring defendant to plead over, entered March 19, 1896.\n19-20 9. Plea and affidavit of defendant filed March 24, 1896.\n21 10. Motion of plaintiff filed March 31, 1896.\n21-22 11. Judgment on motion rendered March 31, 1896.\n33-24-25 12. Bill of exceptions filed April 28, 1896.\n25 13. Bond filed April 16, 1896.\u201d\nSuch an abstract gives us no information from which we can determine what the issue involved is.\nIt is not an abstract but a mere index.\nFor want of a proper abstract, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles B. Stafford, attorney for appellant.",
      "Ira W. & C. C. Buell, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Geo. M. Chamberlin v. Eugene Cary.\n1. Appellate Court Practice-\u2014 What Abstracts Should Show.\u2014 The Appellate Court will not consider a case upon its merits where the abstract is a mere index and gives no information from which the court can determine what the issue involved is, but will affirm the judgment.\nAssumpsit, on- two promissory notes. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Charles G. Neely, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 28, 1896.\nCharles B. Stafford, attorney for appellant.\nIra W. & C. C. Buell, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0542-01",
  "first_page_order": 540,
  "last_page_order": 541
}
